RE: [Raven] Internet Draft comments

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <> Wed, 16 February 2000 15:03 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00683 for <>; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:03:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA21492; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:25:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA21463 for <>; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:25:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29038 for <>; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:26:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from alden ( []) by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09825; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:25:38 +0100
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:27:56 +0100
To: Chris Savage <>, "'P.J. Ponder'" <>, "IETF Wiretapping List (E-mail)" <>
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <>
Subject: RE: [Raven] Internet Draft comments
In-Reply-To: < m>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Raven Discussion List <>

At 12:42 15.02.00 -0500, Chris Savage wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: P.J. Ponder []
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 11:15 AM
> >To:
> >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?

I'd hope so.
I know the editors have your input in their queue; a new draft will 
probably be forthcoming reasonably soon, with the intent of shipping it to 
the IESG for processing and RFC publication (possibly with an IETF-wide 
Last Call).

After that, we should be done.


Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway

raven mailing list