On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Scott> In that first paragraph, I would prefer to say "privacy" > Scott> rather than "pervasive monitoring". Vulnerability to > Scott> pervasive monitoring is just one way in which privacy > Scott> problems show themselves. It shouldn't be the only angle from > Scott> which the problems are viewed. > > Yes, but I don't think a general privacy requirement is appropriate for > this document. > Here, we're trying to document a consensus that we want to look at > specific attacks when people monitor at a bunch of points, combine data, > etc. > That's more specific than privacy, and that specific question is one I > want WGs to answer. Right. There are two issues: - What should be in this document (about pervasive monitoring) - What would we like WGs to consider? I believe we need to keep it simple for WGs, and give them just one clear, essential, question to consider. A general privacy question is not appropriate for this document, but it is appropriate for what we ask WGs to think about. This document could say "WGs should consider pervasive monitoring". That's fine. When it comes to adding to WG guidelines, we should ask a more general question. Thanks ... Scott