On 04/01/2014 06:33, Eric Rosen wrote:
> Scott> Is there something in that that you disagree with?
>
> The issue isn't whether I agree or disagree with it, it's whether the IETF
> should be making this foray into politics.
It would be politics if the draft said that (for example) it's
OK for the Fives Eyes consortium to perform pervasive
monitoring, but it's not OK for some other organisation to do
so. Or it would be politics if it said the opposite. It very
carefully doesn't say either of those things or anything like
it. It says that pervasive monitoring is in practical terms a
security attack and that we intend to take this into account in
future IETF work. How is that politics?
There is a political debate going on, but not here.
Brian