Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> We can discourage people communicating with a party that are >> under full control of USG, which is why using cloud services >> should be discouraged, which is a technical issue. > > An open standardization process means that everyone can participate, > including people who work for the government (directly or indirectly). As long as a standard being developed is within the scope of the process, yes. > Whether you like what someone is putting forward is a completely > different story but I hope you would at least look at the content before > judging it. Developing protocols to promote antisocial activities is worse than developing Ethernet/Wifi protocol in IETF. > So, I believe this attitude against people and companies who may have > had, or still have relationships with governments is counterproductive. Protection from governments is not very productive, indeed, which does not mean we shouldn't do it. > On your argument against cloud standardization in the IETF I have two > remarks, namely : > > * Cloud services (with whatever definition you use) indeed presents > challenges for privacy and security. > > * There is no standardization in the IETF on something like the "cloud". > On the other hand I have to say that almost every protocol we > standardize in the IETF could be used in a cloud service. For example, > many cloud services use HTTP. Should we stop working on HTTP? For example, the following RFC: 6208 Cloud Data Management Interface (CDMI) Media Types K. Sankar, A. Jones [ April 2011 ] (TXT = 23187) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) is a product of IETF to promote cloud service. Masataka Ohta