--On Thursday, 07 November, 2013 10:47 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It seems to me that all three are perfecly clear as > aspirational goals, and that they all include some room for > interpretation. It's also true that some of them may be in > immediate conflict with other goals (for example, a web proxy > that is blind to the content might be rather bad at content > filtering). But all that will come out in the detailed > analysis of each issue. Guiding principles really have to > skate over many details. Brian, I thought of it less as (even) aspirational goals than as theater and, as such, completely appropriate. As anything closer to a consensus evaluation, it seemed to have many of the properties that draft-resnick-on-consensus warns about: hums at the end of the process that were not clearly motivated except as a way of confirming and announcing consensus, assessment and reporting of loudness as if it were a vote, concentrating on the majority response rather than the issues and reasoning of the minority, and asking sweeping questions that don't seem to lead to anything actionable (I assume that a hum associated with the question "who is in favor of breathing" would yield at least equal results. at least unless everyone who didn't hum was then asked to demonstrate their objections by ceasing to do it). I also assume that, from a policy standpoint, if an IESG decided to reject every specification, especially those that update existing protocols because the result isn't optimal from a security point of view, we've rapidly see either our first recalls or some rather dramatic reforms. I think that, after this morning's discussion, what I'd like to see is the same thing I would have liked to see yesterday, which is that every specification be evaluated in terms of the tradeoffs among all of the considerations that bear on it, including security generally and surveillance-resistance specifically. If the plenary discussion and/or the theatrical qualities of the hums leads us to get more serious and effective about that, it would be, IMO, great. If not, that would be unfortunate, but I hope today's plenary was intended to start and frame a discussion that will continue, not end it. best, john