If privacy is so important to the IETF, why are we all posting to this list using our real names? Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood can we call the IETF chair "Number One"? ________________________________________ From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2015 12:12:20 AM To: Joe Touch Cc: Paul Wouters; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: FTP Service Discontinuance Under Consideration; Input Requested > > 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