* Stephen Farrell wrote: >On 01/04/2014 01:10 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> * Stephen Farrell wrote: >>> On 01/04/2014 12:45 AM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> "Please include a full explanation of how pervasive monitoring is >>>> mitigated in this protocol. If this protocol is not fully >>>> cryptographically secure to defeat pervasive monitoring, explain why >>>> not." >The text (I hate to bring it up, seems almost unfashionable;-), >says: > > Those developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how > they have considered pervasive monitoring, and, if the attack is > relevant to the work to be published, be able to justify related > design decisions. This does not mean a new "pervasive monitoring > considerations" section is needed in IETF documentation. It means > that, if asked, there needs to be a good answer to the question "is > pervasive monitoring relevant to this work and if so how has it been > addressed?" >Lloyd's "paraphrase" is entirely unlike the actual text. His >quote marks, are, like his argument, entirely bogus. (And not >even funny, which is often a redeeming quality of Lloyd's >posts:-) Given that there seems to be a trend to ignore the >actual text, and that that I've already commented on that, I >think yes, his supposed quote is out of order. Perhaps you >don't, and that's fine, but I do. If you think it would be a serious problem if the text is interpreted as in the paraphrase above, then I think revisions to the actual text are in order, because if there is any difference between the actual text and the paraphrase, I find it hard to impossible to make out. It is not fine to keep the text as-is if it is easy to misinterpret. -- 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/