On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Scott> OK, if we're going to get stuck on the example, we should > Scott> take it out. As Sam said, it's the least necessary part. > > Scott> I still think the phrase in the first sentence "including > Scott> which existing technology is re-used" could be better. > > Yeah, let's lose the example at this point. > > I disagree with Eliot: I don't think the general statement is a truism > especially not in a BCP. > In particular we're: > > * saying what point in the process you need to evaluate the > architectural implications on your ability to mittigate pervasive > monitoring > > * Reminding people to get appropriate review > > * Indicating that PM needs to be considered at the architectural > decision level, not just late in the process. > > > I believe all that is important in a BCP, and strongly support that sort > of statement being in a BCP now. > I definitely don't want to see the example used as an argument against > BCP so let's lose it. Yes, all true. Please drop what I said about ambiguity in the first sentence. It's not worth stopping progress for. Are we ready to move forward? Scott