Hi Steve, On 12/17/2013 02:38 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > Stephen, >>> Your parenthetical comment admits the probability is not approaching 1, >>> for all users on all links, ... This may be a reason why we don't have a >>> rigorous definition for pervasive monitoring yet. >> I assert we have a sufficient definition for this BCP and do >> not here need more. Can you say what ambiguity in interpretation >> would be caused by the current definition? I don't think any of >> us interested in aimless perfection, but if there are ambiguities >> that'd have an impact, then those would be very interesting. >> If there are no such ambiguities, then we should be done. > I disagree. I guess we disagree:-) > I think specific discussions of what is NOT PM will > help, Latest suggested text on that on the list was at [1] following a longish thread. > and saying why we believe PM merits our attention, NOW, is > important. That's fair. The current text says because PM is indistinguishable from other attacks, but see also the text I suggested in [2]. I do think that's enough really for this document. > Otherwise, we will look silly to many readers. Well, as you know, I don't much mind looking silly myself:-) But I don't think I've not seen anyone (else?) say the current text looks silly. >> Other points from recent mails: >> >> - RFC4949 is already referenced - are we all reading the draft? > my comment re 4949 was a respond to the ISO terminology message. Sorry, didn't mean you there. >> - Artefact is correct. [1]' > Artifact is the US English spelling, as the OED notes. I thought we > usually go with US vs. UK English, which is why we don't see a lot > of instances of "colour" and "behaviour" inn RFCs :-). The RFC editor is fine with either, so long as its consistent in the document is my understanding. So both spellings are correct, and neither is wrong. >> *Please* let's avoid ratholes, I'd ask that everyone think >> whether or not any well-meaning suggestion is one or not >> before suggesting stuff. >> > > You say rathole, That was a bit pejorative of me all right I guess, but I do think there's plenty of scope for us to rathole. > I say clear explanation of what we see as in and out of > scope, > why PM is different from what we have long addressed, and examples to > clarify I do plan to incorporate a bit of text from my reply to you earlier on that. [2] And I'll look over the text you just sent to see if there are bits that could be stolen^H^H^H^H^H^Hused. I don't disagree with quite a bit of your text btw, though there are definitely bits where we do disagree. I'll watch for responses to your other mail though. > this. Avoiding examples creates ambiguity in a context where terms are not > crisply defined. We seem to be in that context. I've still not seen a good example of such an ambiguity. If there are some then that really would be interesting. Cheers, S. PS: I'll be incorporating changes into a -03 in the next day or two since Jari asked for that. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84888.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84998.html > > Steve > >