ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

2014-01-02 13:46:55


On 01/02/2014 04:23 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 01/01/2014 22:08, Ted Lemon wrote:
This argument boils down to "ADs can abuse process, so we ought not to
ever publish a document that might provide process for them to abuse.
Ted, I believe the point is that the AD concerned would not be abusing
the process, they would simply be making a different judgement call, or
a stricter interpretation (for what ever reason) of the in place PM
requirements than the authors and preceding reviewers of the text.

The  -03 text is a significant improvement, but I still fear the impact
of single issue technical politics on the output of our document stream.

But Ted also pointed out that there is already plenty of ammunition
for an overly zealous AD to use to have that bad effect. And you and
others are I think also saying that that did happen in the past. If so,
then this BCP will have no impact in that respect - what is already
possible will continue to be possible regardless of what happens with
this draft.

S.



Stewart


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>