On 07/20/2013 04:06 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Wrt privacy in general... >> >> On 07/20/2013 02:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >>> Any volunteers >>> to get in front of the mic lines? >> >> I'd welcome that discussion. I'd love to see us have a >> BCP61-like [1] RFC on the topic of privacy and I also >> reckon that that'd help short-cut a number of IETF LCs >> and IESG DISCUSSes. (For example the Forwarded HTTP >> header and WebFinger both caused extensive discussions.) >> >> FWIW, my personal preference would be that such a BCP >> would attempt to make our work be more privacy friendly >> and by default though I'm not quite how how best to try >> achieve that though. >> >> But, even if the outcome wasn't a BCP along the lines >> I'd prefer, I think such a beast would still be worth >> having if it meant we could avoid a whole lot of these >> kinds of similar discussions on individual drafts. >> >> S. >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp61 > > I agree completely. Doesn't draft-iab-privacy-considerations do what > you want? As John said, that sets out considerations but what I'm talking about here would be a BCP, so no that's a useful input but doesn't represent an IETF consensus position the way a BCP would. S. > (And no matter what gets agreed to at a general level, we > will still have these discussions about specifics.) >