Subject: [Dots] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:26:19 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not a BLOCK but I'd like to chat about it and may consider
it being a BLOCK at the next stage, depending on the discussion.
The text says "providing for privacy in operation" but I think it
ought say "providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly
choices being the default in all cases" (or similar). This kind of 
reporting can easily end up privacy-unfriendly, especially when 
we're saying the WG should consider "network security applications 
beyond the DDoS problem space" which could be interpreted by 
some to include very privacy-unfriendly applications. So I think 
explicitly calling for the default to be whatever privacy-friendly
choices exist and are usable is important here.

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:05:56 +0200

Hello Stephen,

I would agree with your proposed edit and think this is a good point.
Fully in support of the proposed edit.

Best regards, Tobias

On 08/06/15 17:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

---

From: "Teague, Nik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:19:01 +0000

Stephen hi,

I agree with adding further clarification to this point and to the
proposed edit to make privacy friendly choices a default in all cases.

Thanks,

-Nik

---

From: Andrew Mortensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:31:45 -0400

Adding my support for making privacy-friendliness an explicit default.

andrew

> On Jun 8, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>