On 12/11/13 5:07 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Can you give examples of what is "not required" to operate >the network? Couldn't CALEA be so considered? And if so, >wouldn't that make this BCP conflict badly with 2804? By "operate" I was literally thinking about the technical functioning of the network -- whether the network can be made to work. For example, if a network operator feels that in order to follow this BCP it must stop all DDoS mitigation, and as a result the network is constantly flooded with attack traffic that renders the network essentially unusable for legitimate users, the network would have been made inoperable. It wouldn't be able to do what it was meant to do, which is provide connectivity. I realize that this is using the word "operate" more like the dictionary definition and less like we usually use the term "operations" in the IETF (per Scott's email), but I think it works. I don't see any reasonable argument that a network would have to support CALEA compliance in order for it to be functional/operational -- surely networks can be built (and already exist, in people's homes, outside the US, etc.) that both provide connectivity and are not CALEA-compliant. Alissa > >S > >> >> OLD: >> Making networks unmanageable in order to mitigate >> pervasive monitoring would not be an acceptable outcome. >> >> >> NEW: >> Making networks inoperable in order to mitigate >> pervasive monitoring would not be an acceptable outcome. >> >> >> (Realizing that now is not the time to wordsmith, but just offering >> examples that might address the concerns raised earlier in the thread by >> Eliot and others.) >> >> Alissa >> >> >>