--On Thursday, January 23, 2014 16:13 -0500 Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > John> On the other hand, if there is a real commitment to > action, John> then WGs have to be accountable for design > decisions that do John> (or do not) support the goal and > be ready to explain their John> decisions, even > privacy-protecting ones that impose or John> increase > costs to performance, operations, or elsewhere. And John> > I would expect (not merely fear) ADs to push back strongly on > John> a WG that was unwilling or unable to do that and > expect John> Nomcoms to hold ADs accountable if they did > not enforce the John> intent of the rules. > > Strongly agreed. > And if we don't have a community commitment to do that can we > please be honest with the world and tell everyone that when we > look at the cost of this issue it was something our community > did not choose to pay? Sam, I think we are in agreement but, to clarify one possible issue about choosing to pay: my ongoing fear is that, no matter what disclaimers are made during this discussion or in the document itself, sooner or later someone will make, and get traction for, the claim that, since we have a BCP that says "pervasive monitoring/surveillance is bad and needs to be repelled" and no BCP that says "performance is important", privacy is inherently more important in protocol design. I have no problem requiring that a WG explain and justify choices that are not as monitoring-resistant as is possible, but, were the community not able to consider and accept such explanations (when they are reasonable), I think we would be in big trouble. FWIW, I slightly prefer "justify" to "explain" but, like you, can live with "explain" if others have a strong preference in that direction. best, john