Hi all, Sam raised an issue that we didn't handle in the -03 version. [1] After some offlist mail between us I think that his issue would be resolved with a change such as the one below, adding a new paragraph. Should text like this be added to the document? FWIW, I'd be ok with that, or with leaving this out and for a slightly longer discussion of the topic to be part of Richard et al's problem statement draft. [2] Please say what you think. The proposed change in OLD/NEW form is: OLD 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 considered?" NEW 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 considered?" In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing technology is re-used, significantly impact the vulnerability of a protocol to pervasive monitoring. For example, if a protocol uses DNS to store information, then a passive attacker can observe the queries made to the DNS. Those developing IETF specifications therefore need to consider mitigating pervasive monitoring when making these architectural decisions and be prepared to justify their decisions. Getting adequate, early review of architectural decisions including whether appropriate mitigation of pervasive monitoring can be made is important. Revisiting these architectural decisions late in the process is very costly. Thanks, S. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84996.html [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-pervasive-problem