Subject: [dns-privacy] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: (with DISCUSS)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 11:44:26 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Trimmed to the one outstanding point from my original DISCUSS:

I do not think item #5 in Section 6.1.2 belongs in this document. I don't see
how it is within scope for the IETF to be specifying these sorts of best
practices, which are not technical or operational in nature but focus on legal
matters and likely require the involvement of lots of lawyers in order to get
the provisions written. This section implies that the DROP documents would
become legal/compliance documents by nature, which may or may not be a good
choice but is not within the remit of the IETF to specify. Also, I think what
this section asks for is not the norm today and therefore it seems odd for the
IETF to specify a best practice that operators may not have any chance of being
able to comply with (e.g., listing specific law enforcement agencies, privacy
laws, or countries where data centers will reside and the data will never move
from them).