W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

RE: Benjamin Carlyle http 2.0 expression of interest

From: Anil Sharma <asharma@sandvine.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:29:12 +0000
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <06923070D47780469EBD9A1CDABAB6D6197FF341@blr-exch-1.sandvine.com>
As the internet becomes the primary mode of information exchange,  there would be requirements to monitor this mode of communication. I would read following from the same RFC before taking any position on this issue  

"On the other hand, the IETF believes that mechanisms designed to
     facilitate or enable wiretapping, or methods of using other
     facilities for such purposes, should be openly described, so as to
     ensure the maximum review of the mechanisms and ensure that they
     adhere as closely as possible to their design constraints. The IETF
     believes that the publication of such mechanisms, and the
     publication of known weaknesses in such mechanisms, is a Good
     Thing.

2. The Raven process

   The issue of the IETF doing work on legal intercept technologies came
   up as a byproduct of the extensive work that the IETF is now doing in
   the area if IP-based telephony.

   In the telephony world, there has been a tradition of cooperation
   (often mandated by law) between law enforcement agencies and
   telephone equipment operators on wiretapping, leading to companies
   that build telephone equipment adding wiretapping features to their
   telephony-related equipment, and an emerging consensus in the

   industry of how to build and manage such features. Some traditional
   telephony standards organizations have supported this by adding
   intercept features to their telephony-related standards.

   Since the future of the telephone seems to be intertwined with the
   Internet it is inevitable that the primary Internet standards
   organization would be faced with the issue sooner or later"

Also after reading this section from the same RFC, I think you would review your statement again:

" Why the IETF does not take a moral position

   Much of the debate about wiretapping has centered around the question
   of whether wiretapping is morally evil, no matter who does it,
   necessary in any civilized society, or an effective tool for catching
   criminals that has been abused in the past and will be abused again.

   The IETF has decided not to take a position in this matter, since:

   - There is no clear consensus around a single position in the IETF.

   - There is no means of detecting the morality of an act "on the
     wire".  Since the IETF deals with protocol standardization, not
     protocol deployment, it is not in a position to dictate that its
     product is only used in moral or legal ways."

Best,
Anil


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:03 AM
To: Anil Sharma
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Benjamin Carlyle http 2.0 expression of interest



On 07/22/2012 07:36 PM, Anil Sharma wrote:
> I think there are cases in which authorities should be allowed to inspect and intercept  if they have sufficient reasons to do so.

See RFC 2804, already quoted recently on this list by Ted.

If you would like to try change that feel free, but that IETF
consensus conflicts with your statement above and is not
something for this wg to try change I reckon.

S.
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 05:31:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 July 2012 05:31:48 GMT