I've a question about the relevance of your comment
John:
On 12/11/2013 08:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
if encryption
were pervasive
The draft in question does not call for that. It calls
for proper consideration of the pervasive monitoring
attack and work to mitigate that.
Use of encryption for confidentiality will be a relevant
mitigation for various protocols, but to comment as if
this draft called for ubiquitous confidentiality seems
very odd if one has read the draft.
John - can you say what part of the draft caused you to
incorrectly conclude that "pervasive encryption" (whatever
that means) is even being discussed never mind recommended?
Thanks,
S.