Hi Steve,
On 12/17/2013 02:38 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
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 guess we disagree:-)
I think specific discussions of what is NOT PM will
help,
Latest suggested text on that on the list was at [1]
following a longish thread.
and saying why we believe PM merits our attention, NOW, is
important.
That's fair. The current text says because PM is
indistinguishable from other attacks, but see
also the text I suggested in [2]. I do think that's
enough really for this document.
Otherwise, we will look silly to many readers.
Well, as you know, I don't much mind looking silly
myself:-) But I don't think I've not seen anyone
(else?) say the current text looks silly.
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.
Sorry, didn't mean you there.
- 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 :-).
The RFC editor is fine with either, so long as its
consistent in the document is my understanding. So
both spellings are correct, and neither is wrong.
*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,
That was a bit pejorative of me all right I guess, but
I do think there's plenty of scope for us to 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
I do plan to incorporate a bit of text from my reply
to you earlier on that. [2] And I'll look over the text
you just sent to see if there are bits that could be
stolen^H^H^H^H^H^Hused.
I don't disagree with quite a bit of your text btw,
though there are definitely bits where we do disagree.
I'll watch for responses to your other mail though.
this. Avoiding examples creates ambiguity in a context where terms are not
crisply defined. We seem to be in that context.
I've still not seen a good example of such an ambiguity. If
there are some then that really would be interesting.
Cheers,
S.
PS: I'll be incorporating changes into a -03 in the next
day or two since Jari asked for that.
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84888.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84998.html
Steve