[Mtgvenue] Re: is identification of individuals already covered by BCP 226

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I always think it's worth checking citations. In this case, I suggest looking at the "Privacy Considerations" of the RFC 8718 component of BCP 226:

"As meetings are announced, the IASA SHALL inform the IETF of any limitations to privacy they have become aware of in their investigations. For example, participants would be informed of any regulatory authentication or logging requirements." [1]

In this case, it seems that the LLC did inform participants, as soon as they could, but too late to affect site selection. draft-rescorla-anonymous-network strengthens this considerably by requiring IASA to ensure a certain level of privacy protection, not just to inform the IETF. That seems like a good thing, but of course doesn't avoid the late surprise problem.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8718.html#name-privacy-considerations

Regards/Ngā mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 27-Mar-26 00:16, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Stephen
> 
> On 26.03.2026 12:01, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Can you give a precise reference? Looking at [1] I'm not sure
>> which bit of text you mean.
>>
>>    [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp226/
> 
>     *  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
>        acceptable.
> 
> The argument was made on this list that maintaining the privacy of participants is a matter of safety.  If we accept that, then why aren't we already covered, especially if the LLC interprets it that way (that's actually a question)?
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]