Subject: Re: correcting a media article on Raven/IPv6

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 10:06:43 -0800

> Editor's Note: Press reports of the ACLU's action confused two separate
> issues.  The first was a discussion (not a plan) of what should be the
> IETF's policy regarding supporting wiretapping for IETF protocols.  This
> had nothing to do with IPv6.  The issue was aired at the IETF's November
> meeting, at which strong opposition to supporting wiretapping was voiced.

add "The IETF will be documentating the results of this discussion."

> The second concerned how the autoconfiguration feature of IPv6 could

"The second expressed concern that the auto..."

> compromise a user's anonymity.  The IETF replied to this concern in a
> statement available from

"available as" i suspect a url is *popularly* considered to be the document
not it's location.

> http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipv6-address-privacy.html .

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 10:06:43 -0800

randy

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 19:16:23 -0500

Hi Randy,

You know, I probably don't want to go here, but since you pulled the
ring tab and opened this can:

Randy Bush wrote:
.  .  .
> "available as" i suspect a url is *popularly* considered to be the document

Well, I don't recall any polls to that effect and I catagorically don't
consider the URL to be the document, since it's an address and not a
name. Now, this takes us into a huge and messy space, but since I happen
to be one of those people who actually believe that a name and an
address aren't the same thing, I'd have to disagree with this
statement...

				- peterd

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------

   "For a good time, tune 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25MHz"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 19:16:23 -0500

Hi Randy,

Randy Bush wrote:
.  .  .

				- peterd