i am less comfortable with hiding this critical discussion off in some obscure mailing list. we already have enough problems with closed iab discussions. > Sure. But isn't it the move to encrypt more that's motivating this and > other drafts? If so, then I think ack'ing that there are valid and > pressing motivations for that move is needed. If there are other > motivations, those aren't clear to me at least and therefore probably > also deserve a mention. We've seen (with Kathleen and Al's draft), > that some people (not the authors here) do quote drafts like this when > arguing against more confidentiality, so I think this draft, and > similar ones, really ought say that we do need more use of > confidentiality, and not just assume that that's accepted by all > readers. Yes, that only needs to be a sentence or two and some > reference, but I do think it needs to be there. extremely much so, tyvm. to me, this is *the* critical issue here. the other issues we can ietf to death, like trains to maastricht or visas to bangkok. but making clear that strong encryption is here to stay and that is a good thing is principle. randy
