On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Hugo Maxwell Connery <hmco@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think that this is an excellent idea. I have re-read the document > and it succinctly outlines the fallacies of weak/escrowed etc. crypto. > > I can think of no better way for the IAB and IESG to respond to > cryptowars II than reissue their position from cryptowars I. > > The publicity of the change may also enable people engaging > in cryptowars II to sum their positions simply as "read RFC1984". hear, hear. There is also an interesting benefit of *not* changing the text much if at all when updating it to BCP: it goes to show that this sentiment is so timeless as to need little or not edits to be relevant to the (unfortuante, in my opinion) ongoing and rather clueless policy discussion. best, Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 joe@xxxxxxx PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871