Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pularikkal-opsawg-lawful-intercept-spwifi-00.txt

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:34:12 -0500

Brian,

There are well established and effective global venues for this work in ETSI and 3GPP.  Why is not being pursued there?

--tony

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> 
Date: 19/02/2013  03:03  (GMT-05:00) 
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]> 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for
 	draft-pularikkal-opsawg-lawful-intercept-spwifi-00.txt 
 
On 19/02/2013 05:39, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> I think this is a good point. We had few discussions with Fred Baker as
> well on this aspect. RFC-2804 was written 13 years back, many things have
> changed since then. 

The IETF's policy has not changed since then. The arguments we went through
in 1999/2000 have not changed since then.

The policy is quite short, but to extract two key points:

>    The IETF has decided not to consider requirements for wiretapping as
>    part of the process for creating and maintaining IETF standards.

>    - 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,

An example of the latter is RFC 3924. You can describe a solution, but
the IETF will not standardise it.

   Brian

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg