On 2018-11-11 20:11, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Amelia, > > I read draft-andersdotter-intarea-update-to-rfc6302-00 (expired) > several months ago. I unfortunately did have time to comment because > of a significant increase in workload. I had an email exchange [1] > with one of the RFC authors about RFC 6302. Was there any feedback on > your draft? if that is the case, could you please point me to it or > share a quick summary?
E-mails in this thread: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg06335.html and here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg06434.html It was my sense that the feeling in the group was that, much like RFC6302 hasn't necessarily been taken up or solved the problems it purported to, neither would updating it in a privacy-conducive direction. > By the way, there was an article [2] about your draft by "one of the > most influential research and advisory firms in the world". I think they've misunderstood the GDPR. It's a highly risk assessment based text, which only makes requirements where "possible" or "appropriate". This was also one of the feedbacks that inspired my draft, or rather grievances expressed with the GDPR (it is a framework which is difficult to understand because of its vagueness). Practically, the use cases for logged data discussed in the WG were unrelated to breaches and related to advertising and LEA. best regards, Amelia > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. It is in the Internet Area mailing list archive. > 2. > https://go.forrester.com/blogs/ietf-takes-gdpr-influence-a-little-too-far-in-its-draft-standard-for-logging-for-internet-facing-servers/ > -- Amelia Andersdotter Technical Consultant, Digital Programme ARTICLE19 www.article19.org PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
