Seriously late to the party here, sorry...
Is there any chance of having a look at an -03, or maybe a proposed diff to -02 given the discussion so far? I don't want to comment on old resolved stuff.On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:48 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack'
<draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-12-31. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
The IETF has consensus that pervasive monitoring is a technical
attack that should be mitigated in the design of IETF protocols,
where possible.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-perpass-attack/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-perpass-attack/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.