Worked on it tonight, need to check various bits but it'll be out Friday/Sat. S On 12/18/2013 02:27 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 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. > > -MSK > > > 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. >> >> >> >