--On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 16:23 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 12/31/2013 12:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
So, at the risk of repeating something others have said, I
don't want to see a Last Call (or, worse, post-Last Call)
debate about whether the authors of a document that isn't
seen to be secure enough against persuasive surveillance has
done everything that might be possible to mitigate that risk.
As always, folks should take special note, when John and I
agree on something. (Although in this realm of discussion, we
usually do.)
In this case, I raised similar concerns some time ago:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84897.html
where the basic message is:
We should not approve an IETF policy statement
until we have a good idea of the way we will use it.
And, indeed, I was aware of that message, which appeared a few
hours before I sent mine out, more or less in response to yours
and Brian's together. Comparison of your notes of the 11th and
yesterday to mine of the 11th and yesterday indicates to me that
we are thinking about the key issues a little differently, but
reaching the same conclusion about both those issues and overall.
john
s