DTNRG work suggests that they already have... Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore [melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 01 January 2014 23:07 To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice On 1/1/14 1:58 PM, Russ White wrote: > Consider the alternative. In a year, we have a draft on the table that > seriously compromises privacy, or opens a huge door to surveillance. We can > point to an informational about why such a draft needs work, an experimental > about why such a draft needs work, or a BCP. Which one is the draft authors > going to take seriously, or pay attention to? "You really want me to change > my draft completely to meet the demands of an experimental draft? Since when > do we care about experimentals and informationals?" I'm sorry, but when we get to the point where we need to point to an RFC to stop progress on a document that has obvious vulnerabilities, our brains have fallen out. Melinda