Subject: [Raven] One small objection to -01 draft

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:42:27 -0600

This may seem like a trivial objection to some folks, but I think it 
is significant because of its placement:

>Abstract
>
>The IETF has been asked to take a position on the inclusion into 
>IETF standards-track documents of functionality designed to 
>facilitate wiretapping.
>
>This memo explains what the IETF thinks the question means, why its 
>answer is "no", and what that answer means.

I really think this needs to be changed. The first sentence states no 
question, let alone one to which the answer could be "no". By 
triangulation in the rest of the document, you might be able to 
figure out that the question might be "Should the IETF consider 
requirements for wiretapping as part of the process for creating and 
maintaining IETF standards?" (see first sentence of section 1). 
However, my fear is that people will read the first sentence, assume 
the question is "Should there ever be wiretapping on the Internet?" 
and think that the *IETF* answer to that question is "no". Whatever 
my personal position on the latter question is, it is certainly not a 
question to which this document gives (or should give) a definitive 
answer.

Might I suggest that the second sentence in the abstract be changed to:

"This memo explains why the IETF has decided not to consider 
requirements for wiretapping as part of the process for creating and 
maintaining IETF standards."

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
Eudora Engineering - QUALCOMM Incorporated

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven