DTNRG work suggests that they already have...
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
[melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 01 January 2014 23:07
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive
Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice
On 1/1/14 1:58 PM, Russ White wrote:
Consider the alternative. In a year, we have a draft on the table that
seriously compromises privacy, or opens a huge door to surveillance. We can
point to an informational about why such a draft needs work, an experimental
about why such a draft needs work, or a BCP. Which one is the draft authors
going to take seriously, or pay attention to? "You really want me to change
my draft completely to meet the demands of an experimental draft? Since when
do we care about experimentals and informationals?"
I'm sorry, but when we get to the point where we need to point to an
RFC to stop progress on a document that has obvious vulnerabilities,
our brains have fallen out.
Melinda