Sigh. That is in itself a political stance. Jeff Schmidt's Disciplined Minds has a good overview of the political mindset of the professional workforce. http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter [brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 04 January 2014 00:38 To: erosen@xxxxxxxxx Cc: John C Klensin; IETF Discussion; Stewart Bryant Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice 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