Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 16:23 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 12/31/2013 12:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> So, at the risk of repeating something others have said, I
>> don't want to see a Last Call (or, worse, post-Last Call)
>> debate about whether the authors of a document that isn't
>> seen to be secure enough against persuasive surveillance has
>> done everything that might be possible to mitigate that risk.
> 
> 
> As always, folks should take special note, when John and I
> agree on something.  (Although in this realm of discussion, we
> usually do.)
> 
> In this case, I raised similar concerns some time ago:
> 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84897.html
> 
> where the basic message is:
> 
>       We should not approve an IETF policy statement
>      until we have a good idea of the way we will use it.

And, indeed, I was aware of that message, which appeared a few
hours before I sent mine out, more or less in response to yours
and Brian's together.  Comparison of your notes of the 11th and
yesterday to mine of the 11th and yesterday indicates to me that
we are thinking about the key issues a little differently, but
reaching the same conclusion about both those issues and overall.

   john


s






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]