Re: [MLS] Robert Wilton's Abstain on draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob, please see below:

> On Feb 2, 2023, at 8:18 AM, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: Abstain
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mls-protocol/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Sorry for the late ballot on this document and the MLS architecture document
> but I've struggled to decide whether to ballot no obj or abstain.
> 
> In the end I decided to ballot abstain because I'm unsure whether standardizing
> MLS in really the right thing to do for end users (which may just be my
> ignorance).  I'm strongly supportive of efforts to make messaging platforms
> interoperate cleanly (e.g., I'm supportive of the MIMI WG being chartered) and
> I appreciate that MLS is likely to underpin some of that work, but I also
> question whether the IETF standardizing this will ultimately be beneficial for
> societies and humanity (and note - I'm not advocating for pervasive monitoring,
> but preventing any ability for judicially supported interceptions for criminal
> investigations concerns me).  In the limited cases where IETF standardization
> and technology choices are could directly impact the effectiveness of law
> enforcement or conflict with democratically elected government policies then I
> think that it would be great if the IETF was able to receive and consider a
> wider range of views in the consensus process to ensure that we really are
> making the right choices.

Are you familiar with RFC 2804? I think it bears directly on your last sentence, in the sense that it solicited a wide range of views on this exact subject.

Thanks!

Ben.