Re: [Raven] Internet Draft comments

I have nothing to add to Chris' comments, which I believe improved the draft
quite noticeably.

Richard Payne

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Savage <chris.savage@crblaw.com>
To: 'P.J. Ponder' <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>; IETF Wiretapping List (E-mail)
<raven@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Raven] Internet Draft comments

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: P.J. Ponder [mailto:ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us]
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 11:15 AM
> >To: raven@ietf.org
> >Subject: [Raven] Internet Draft comments
> >
> >
> >In the interest of nudging the list back toward the actual draft of the
> >wiretapping document, I think the document as originally
> >posted is concise
> >and addresses the major points that are the subject of the questions
> >raised.
> >
> >There were some comments about the definition of
> >'wire-tapping', and some
> >other more or less substantive comments in the rest of the
> >draft.  These
> >comments may deserve further discussion.
> >
> >Overall, though, I think the draft is more than adequate as it
> >stands to
> >set forth a reasoned and articulate policy statement for the IETF, the
> >IAB, and the IESG regarding wiretapping.  I don't see any
> >glaring errors
> >or 'show-stoppers' in the draft, and I am willing to argue that we have
> >reached that state of grace once described as 'rough consensus'.
> >
> >We could debate grammatical niceties and diction, but in terms of
> >substance, I think we have a policy statement that makes sense
> >and cleary
> >states a position.
>
> As the (AFAIK) only proponent of a significant number of word changes, let
> me say that I agree.
>
> As I said earlier, the point of my proposed changes was to clarify the
> draft's evident intent, not to make actual, substantive changes.  The only
> possible exception was that, having defined "wiretapping" for purposes of
> the document to relate to communications on the 'net, an example that
> asserted that certain telco practices would "be" wiretapping seemed
> inconsistent; that discussion received, I think, my heaviest suggested
> editorial pen.  But even that was intended to clarify and tighten up the
> discussion, not to change its basic thrust in any way.
>
> Time to declare victory and go home?
>
> Chris S.
>
>
>
***************************************************************************
> This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
> privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the
> message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission
> and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
>
***************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> raven mailing list
> raven@ietf.org
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
raven@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven