Gustavo, I see that you made some text changes in Section 11, presumably to address Alissa's concern. My guess is that what you've changed isn't quite what she's getting at (Alissa, please check the current draft and correct me if I'm wrong on that. Please respond to Alissa's DISCUSS by email, and have the discussion about it.
Thanks, Barry On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:48 AM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: 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-regext-data-escrow/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Benjamin's DISCUSS and Roman's last DISCUSS point. Regarding Section > 11, there are often legal agreements in place that govern all sorts of things > about how protocols transfer data between parties, but those are not the main > thing to document in an RFC. Section 11 should be documenting the technical > considerations for how to protect the data that may be escrowed. > > > > > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
