[Raven] Internet Draft comments

"P.J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us> Tue, 15 February 2000 16:44 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13146 for <raven-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:44:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA09243; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:53:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA09215 for <raven@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:53:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us ([199.44.37.210]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10885 for <raven@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:54:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (ponder@localhost) by fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA28903 for <raven@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "P.J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
To: raven@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000215105800.2631A-100000@fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [Raven] Internet Draft comments
Sender: raven-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: raven-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Raven Discussion List <raven.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: raven@ietf.org

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.



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