- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:35:45 +0000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@appelbaum.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 06/12/15 16:58, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Consequently the Danvers Doctrine is an unconditional declaration > of war, against any kind of legal communication intercept, and > therefore it will never be able to collect the signature of a > single minister of justice, nor get endorsed by any legislature. Such risible rhetoric is frankly puzzling. I've no idea why you think that kind of near-gibberish is useful to this wg. (By gibberish I specifically mean your odd concept of having some selection of the world's ministers for justice or legislatures endorse an RFC.) If, as seems to be the case, you have problems with the IETF consensus on how to deal with security and privacy then you should write an I-D and see if that garners consensus. I guess you do know that this is not the right mailing list for that, ietf@ietf.org would be the place to start, not here. S.
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2015 17:36:16 UTC