On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Hugo Maxwell Connery
<hmco(_at_)env(_dot_)dtu(_dot_)dk> wrote:
I think that this is an excellent idea. I have re-read the document
and it succinctly outlines the fallacies of weak/escrowed etc. crypto.
I can think of no better way for the IAB and IESG to respond to
cryptowars II than reissue their position from cryptowars I.
The publicity of the change may also enable people engaging
in cryptowars II to sum their positions simply as "read RFC1984".
hear, hear. There is also an interesting benefit of *not* changing the
text much if at all when updating it to BCP: it goes to show that this
sentiment is so timeless as to need little or not edits to be relevant
to the (unfortuante, in my opinion) ongoing and rather clueless policy
discussion.
best, Joe
--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I ST NW STE 1100
Washington DC 20006-4011
(p) 202-407-8825
(f) 202-637-0968
joe(_at_)cdt(_dot_)org
PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871