* Scott Brim wrote: >If so, what politics? If you look closely at the draft and not so much >at what people are assuming about it, it is straightforward: pervasive >monitoring, for whatever cause, is indistinguishable from an attack; >the ease of such attacks is increasing; the IETF is behind the curve; >so we're going to do more to make it possible to resist such attacks. > >Is there something in that that you disagree with? I think pervasive monitoring is possible without taking any action that is indistinguishable from an attack. If the draft defines "pervasive monitoring" or "attack" so there cannot be "pervasive monitoring" without taking any action that is indisting- uishable from an "attack", ... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/