Fair points. Added to my list of threads to go back to when Jari tells us do do a -03. [1] S. [1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/ppbcp-text-suggestions.txt On 12/11/2013 05:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Scott makes some important points here. > > A more clinical and less dramatic approach would > I think serve us better. > > Stewart > > On 11/12/2013 16:51, Scott Brim wrote: >> I have two major editorial comments too. >> >> I want this draft and the IETF effort it (potentially) represents to >> succeed on a difficult global stage. For that, it needs to be simple, >> clear, and solid in what it says, without much extra to keep readers >> entertained while they absorb the substance. Consider RFC 2804, where >> the face-to-face discussion was passionate but the resulting document >> is straightforwardly factual and technical. That approach worked very >> well for us. >> >> This draft should be a basis for further work at layers 1 through 8+, >> media analysis of what we ("those nerds") are up to, and discussions >> in government, criminal organizations, and other organizations around >> the world. I'm not trying to dampen the message or the enthusiasm, >> just to get it presented carefully, so that no one can misuse what we >> say. >> >> Recommendation #1, the section headings: Currently they are "It's an >> Attack" and "And We Will Continue to Mitigate the Attack". Just those >> headings are all the media needs for high entertainment value. They >> are also all various organizations need as leverage to dismiss us as >> extremists. :-) I suggest making the first section "Pervasive >> Monitoring is Indistinguishable from an Attack". "It's an Attack" is a >> great title for a slide presentation to an appreciative audience, but >> it is only accurate at a high level and is immediately qualified in >> the text anyway. The heading for Section 2 is great as long as Section >> 1 is changed to be clearer. >> >> Recommendation #2, where to put discussion of definitions: Statements >> are made at the front of each section and then _after_ that, the >> concepts used in those statements are developed. In Section 1, >> "attack" is presented as a technical term after it is used in what >> appears to be a non-technical way. I would move discussion of its >> meaning up to the top of the section. The discussion of "pervasive >> monitoring" can probably stay where it is -- let's see after the next >> editing pass. In Section 2, the discussion of the meaning of >> mitigation should be tightened up and moved to the top of the section. >> It's not good to give general readers the soundbites they are going >> to run with unless you make sure they understand what you're saying >> first. >> >> FYI I'm also the assigned gen-art reviewer for this draft, but I'll >> put that off as long as possible until this all settles out. I expect >> a new draft version soon :-). >> >> Scott >> . >> > >