RE: [Raven] Comments on Draft -- Take 2

On 7 Feb 00, at 10:56, Chris Savage wrote:

> IMHO this portion of the draft is pointing out that as matters stand
> today, the divergence of national laws regarding wiretapping is one thing
> that makes an IETF standard to facilitate tapping a bad or unworkable
> idea.

Is this "tested"? I don't know of divergence of national 
laws, to the contrary, all EU countries are lining up.

> In a totally hypothetical world in which (say) countries
> making up 95% of 'net traffic and users had effectively
> identical wiretapping requirements, divergence of
> national laws would not be as strong an argument against
> IETF activity in this area.  It does not follow that the
> IETF, in such a situation, either would or should create
> a standard. It is just that in such a situation the
> reasoning might have to be a bit different.  As someone
> famous once said, "sufficient unto the day is the evil
> thereof..." 

I see a strong kind of "not invented here" resistance.

There is no will to think about what wiretap standard could 
be there is only an "against".

IETF could perfectly design a auditable version of tcpdump.

A good tap just taps everything to and from a programmed IP 
address without editing the content in any way. That's all, 
nothing more and nothing less.

"Divergence of national laws", sigh...

+++chefren

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