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 1/1/2014 12:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I disagree. I think if we constantly desist in taking any action
because there are inevitably a number of nay-sayers, then we've
lost. And in this particular case, a BCP is exactly the right thing.


He did not say take no action. He suggested publishing it, but without standards status. (bcp is standards status.)

It is clear from the list discussion that there is no broad, shared understanding of how this policy statement will be applied. In other words, we do not have rough consensus about what the document /means/.

Having rough consensus about a basic emotion about the social aspects of the topic is not enough.

As a rule, the IETF tends to avoid standardizing specifications that it knows it does not understand.


d/

ps. My own suggestion is Experimental. It demonstrates IETF encouragement for developing exactly the understanding we currently lack.


--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net




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