On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:38 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Fred, > > On 2013/11/07 12:43, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> First, as the questions were asked this morning and as you suggested they might have been reworded, the implication of a "yes" is that we will go back to each protocol we have deployed or in design and "do something" to make it more private, including protection against surveillance. I'm not sure we're likely to, for example, change RFC 791 to make it less available to surveillance, or for that matter RFC 2640. > > I just looked up these two numbers. RFC 791 gives me IP, which makes sense. RFC 2640 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2640) gives me "Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol", which doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that non-ASCII filenames need different protection from ASCII filenames? Oops, sorry, 2460... > Regards, Martin. > ---------------------------------------------------- The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. - Marshall McLuhan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail