On 4/3/2015 5:52 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Joe Touch wrote: > >> So let's say that "network" is run by your government, and they don't >> want to do that. You're OK with denying access? > > You realise the irony that a large part of this mess is because of > recently discovered government behaviour? :P On one hand, we have governments that want to track the content. On the other, we have governments that won't allow content they can't track. (sometimes they put their hands together) >> I don't think that's appropriate. Our documents are not "only for those >> who have non-monitored access". > > I hope we are steadily moving moving towards a network that comes with > build-in privacy. I am not saying that the IETF needs to be the front > runner in that with their documents, although at some point in time > we should do what we preach. I don't disagree with "built in" privacy. I disagree with "forced" privacy and I don't think that any "rough consensus" document should force that upon any of us (especially one with zero requirements language). The key question here is simple: - does the RFC Editor have a reason to warrant mandatory privacy? - should mandatory privacy apply to the whole site, or should there be some content it doesn't care is tracked? IMO, access to I-Ds and RFCs ought to be available even with tracking. Joe