Stephen,
Your parenthetical comment admits the probability is not approaching 1,
for all users on all links, ... This may be a reason why we don't have a
rigorous definition for pervasive monitoring yet.
I assert we have a sufficient definition for this BCP and do
not here need more. Can you say what ambiguity in interpretation
would be caused by the current definition? I don't think any of
us interested in aimless perfection, but if there are ambiguities
that'd have an impact, then those would be very interesting.
If there are no such ambiguities, then we should be done.
I disagree. I think specific discussions of what is NOT PM will
help, and saying why we believe PM merits our attention, NOW, is
important. Otherwise, we will look silly to many readers.
Other points from recent mails:
- RFC4949 is already referenced - are we all reading the draft?
my comment re 4949 was a respond to the ISO terminology message.
- Artefact is correct. [1]'
Artifact is the US English spelling, as the OED notes. I thought we
usually go with US vs. UK English, which is why we don't see a lot
of instances of "colour" and "behaviour" inn RFCs :-).
*Please* let's avoid ratholes, I'd ask that everyone think
whether or not any well-meaning suggestion is one or not
before suggesting stuff.
You say rathole, I say clear explanation of what we see as in and out of
scope,
why PM is different from what we have long addressed, and examples to
clarify
this. Avoiding examples creates ambiguity in a context where terms are not
crisply defined. We seem to be in that context.
Steve