Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/7/2014 8:52 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I find this document to be too vague to function properly as a BCP, and I don't
think we have a sufficient understanding of the tradeoffs involved in making
pervasive monitoring more difficult to write a proper BCP at the present time.
And if anything, hasty and ill-considered changes may make monitoring easier,
not harder.

I think the course advocated by Dave Crocker is the correct one: Publish this
as an informational policy statement, and then work through the policy on
subsequent specifications. Then, once we believe we have a sufficient grasp of
how this actually plays out, write a BCP. (Dave, I think this summarizes your
position, but if not, apologies for getting it wrong.)


I've advocated Experimental, though I've thought Informational would also be ok. On further reflection from people's comment, I now think Informational would be the sufficient and safer choice.

The more important issue is that the draft does usefully introduce the topic of PM to IETF work.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]