> > I can't comment on that directive in particular (if indeed such a > > directive with that name exists, per later mail) but in general I find > > it a feature that a document with operational focus addressed to the > > whole Internet should steer clear of regional policy requirements.
Agreed. > Then commentary needs to be added to the Boiler Plate that no regional > issues were addressed in the testing - hence a test bed based on the > requirements for operating a data-center in the EU were not considered. I see no way that "Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of *personal data and on the free movement of such data*" (my emphasis) is relevant for this requirements document. > That's OK but it means that many in the EU may not be able to deploy > those protocols in their operating environments until those specific > implementations are tested now that the audit world is waking up to its > responsibilities under the digital evidence requirements globally. I note that this is a directive from 1995. Yes, we have seen effects of this directive, even here in Norway (not a EU member) - but I think you are going way beyond what the EU directive is meant to cover when you say it is relevant for the name server requirements document. My opinins only, IANAL. > If this turns out to be true - it will effect all IETF standards in use > today in the EU. The EU directive deals with explicitly *personal data* and the storage and movement of such data. It does not deal with *all data*. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
