On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Eric Rosen <erosen(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Scott> Is there something in that that you disagree with?
The issue isn't whether I agree or disagree with it, it's whether the IETF
should be making this foray into politics.
What politics? Do you agree that pervasive monitoring can be an
attack, and thus even "good" pervasive monitoring is indistinguishable
from an attack? Do you agree that we should make it possible to resist
attacks? Those seem to be straightforward statements.
Scott> Ignore statements that you know are just wrong unless they come from
Scott> those behind the draft,
That would only make sense if the draft were presented as an
individual-stream draft that represents only the authors' opinions, but does
not impact IETF process.
Ted> The point of the IETF stating a position on this is not to give ADs
Ted> another thing they can hassle document authors about.
One has to look at the likely impact of the draft, not merely at the
intentions of the authors.
I meant: look for clarity from those who might actually provide it. I
believe you're saying that people's responses to the draft as it
stands show how they are going to respond to it if it's published --
ie the problem isn't the draft so much as its interpretation ... ?
Yes, that's pretty clearly a problem so far. Perhaps if it were
simplified way down, people couldn't read into it so much.
Scott