> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I never argued that there is not a general threat to privacy due to recording, just that it does not apply here. My point was that the IETF does not have a general technical REQUIREMENT for privacy. There are many that WANT privacy in everything they do, but that does not equate to a real requirement for the public content of an open organization. Substituting security&pirvacy only makes a bad choice of words worse. The IETF has no business case for either, and if there was a case something would have been done about it long before now. > > It isn't the content that is private, of course. However, if there are IETF > participants who require a degree of privacy about their use of IETF public > information, it is entirely reasonable for the IETF to support that with a > straightforward measure like HTTPS. As has been pointed out already, that > is insufficient to provide a high degree of privacy. That’s a big “if”. I don’t believe there are IETF participants who require privacy about accessing IETF information. > Try "...the act of accessing public information required for routine tasks > can be privacy sensitive *on the user's side*…" This is very true for Wikipedia, very true about news sites and many other sites. Not the IETF. > I don't see anything political about that. It's factual. The statement (made by Richard Barnes, not by the IESG) that the IETF should lead by example and move to all HTTPS is very political. The proposal prioritizes the concerns of some group (small or large) and levies a burden on the entire community (TLS is not free; finding www.cleartext.ietf.org takes effort). That is a political decision. It’s a small one. I agree with John Klensin that this is something the IESG could (and should) have done on its own without starting a discussion on a proposed statement. Yoav