to enlarge on that: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/perpass.html no charter http://tools.ietf.org/wg/perpass not found Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx [l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 07 April 2014 01:35 To: huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Security for various IETF services https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/perpass/ that's a lot of drafts. and yet perpass is still not a WG with formal process and charter? Odd, that. Knee-jerk reactions are not good things. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Huitema [huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 07 April 2014 00:30 To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Security for various IETF services > I agree with those who've said a threat analysis is needed before > deciding access is limited to TLS or other secure alternative. But we have that threat analysis, and the recommended mitigation is precisely "encrypt everything." The "pervasive monitoring" threat is analyzed by a number of perpass drafts, and Stephen has merely followed the conclusions of that analysis. There is no need to repeat that analysis for each and every tool that the IETF produces, and there is indeed a need for the IETF as a whole to "lead by example." -- Christian Huitema