--On Thursday, January 23, 2014 16:13 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
"John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
John> On the other hand, if there is a real commitment to
action, John> then WGs have to be accountable for design
decisions that do John> (or do not) support the goal and
be ready to explain their John> decisions, even
privacy-protecting ones that impose or John> increase
costs to performance, operations, or elsewhere. And John>
I would expect (not merely fear) ADs to push back strongly on
John> a WG that was unwilling or unable to do that and
expect John> Nomcoms to hold ADs accountable if they did
not enforce the John> intent of the rules.
Strongly agreed.
And if we don't have a community commitment to do that can we
please be honest with the world and tell everyone that when we
look at the cost of this issue it was something our community
did not choose to pay?
Sam,
I think we are in agreement but, to clarify one possible issue
about choosing to pay: my ongoing fear is that, no matter what
disclaimers are made during this discussion or in the document
itself, sooner or later someone will make, and get traction for,
the claim that, since we have a BCP that says "pervasive
monitoring/surveillance is bad and needs to be repelled" and no
BCP that says "performance is important", privacy is inherently
more important in protocol design. I have no problem requiring
that a WG explain and justify choices that are not as
monitoring-resistant as is possible, but, were the community not
able to consider and accept such explanations (when they are
reasonable), I think we would be in big trouble.
FWIW, I slightly prefer "justify" to "explain" but, like you,
can live with "explain" if others have a strong preference in
that direction.
best,
john