On 2013-05-28, at 3:38, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In theory the IETF does not publish RFCs to suit the regulations of one country (see use-case in draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-04). In practice, the IETF has published a RFC to suit the requirements (it was a voluntary measure instead of a formal requirement) of one country. Note that there's no suggestion that these RRTypes are required by the CRTC. The example given was for a situation where Interop would have been beneficial (so that cable resellers have an obvious, stable and supported way of encoding this kind of information. > draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-04 is an odd case. My guess is that the requirements were set because of a problem of monopoly. The opposite actually: cable operators are required to provide access to subscribers on behalf of third parties in order to promote competition. There are multiple such cable providers and multiple such resellers. (TekSavvy is one such reseller of multiple cable companies' access networks.) > I have not looked into whether the transfer of data violates the expectations of the user. The CRTC's decisions are public, and one might hope they would show their working. The Canadian courts have been pretty protective of user privacy in general, I would say. > I understand that the draft is about standardizing [1] a data format and not the transfer of data. Section 8 of the draft says everything correctly except that it doesn't provide adequate security guidance. Feel free to point out the gaps, and/or to suggest text. > I believe that Joe tried to do the "right thing". I am not comfortable objecting to publication as I don't know the "path forward". I personally would not support publication. That can easily be overcome and I won't do anything about it. Thanks for the thoughtful review. Joe