> > 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. I completely agree with all of this. The IETF has led the way in providing fully open access to both its standards and standards-in-the-making, and indeed, there are still plenty of other standards that are difficult to access. To me this is one of the IETF's core principles, and I don't think the "privacy everywhere" priincple comes even close to trumping it. Ned