An update. I wrote: > Well actually there is confusion about this, which is in part why > there is a debate. We've already seen one working group chair > expecting the IESG to take actions on documents based on this > statement of principle. And so some care is therefore required. The group I had in mind was HTTPBIS. Here is a snipit from a message from Mark Nottingham who is chair of the HTTPBIS working group today: > The wild card in all of this is draft-farrell-perpass-attack. If that document gains IETF consensus, we'll need to demonstrate that we've at least considered pervasive monitoring as a threat, and can explain why we have taken the approach we have. In my opinion, that is PRECISELY what needs to happen. WGs should "show their work" that they have conscientiously considered the matter of pervasive monitoring. A more generalized form of the above text in the document would be very helpful. Eliot