On 11/11/2013 06:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Hiya, > > I think we got a great outcome last week, at the tech > plenary and all the other sessions where we discussed > pervasive monitoring. Thanks to everyone who sent mail, > presented or spoke at a mic for all your constructive > contributions. > > Sean and I chatted at the end of the week and figured > it'd be useful to refine the description of this list > to reflect that progress. Hopefully that'll help us > keep the list more focused between now and London. > Since this is not intended to be a working group, this > isn't a charter, but is a bit similar, so we'd like > to run it by the list in case any discussion is needed. > > We'd like to get that out of the way in the next few > days and then move on to discussion of how to go forward > with the bits and pieces of work that were identified > at the meeting and earlier on the list. (I need to go > back over the meeting notes and listen back to the audio > which I'll do in the next few days but let's get any > discussion of this out of the way first.) > > Our current revised list description based on all that > happened in Vancouver is as follows: > > " > The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive > monitoring. > > IETF specifications need to be designed to protect against > pervasive monitoring where possible. This list is intended > for technical discussions attempting to meet that goal. > > Discussion is limited to specific technical proposals for > improvements in IETF protocols and to IETF process changes > aiming to increase the liklihood that implementation and > deployment of IETF protocols results in better mitigation > for pervasive monitoring. > > Those with proposals are encouraged to embody them in > detailed internet-draft specifications, rather than > relying solely email messages. > > The typical modus-operandi of the perpass list should be > to identify a credible piece of work, with identified > volunteer effort, and then to find a home for that work > within the IETF. Once such a home is identified work > should move to whatever other lists are relevant. > > Note that the perpass list is a non-working group list, > that is, there is no intent to form an IETF working > group on this topic. > " we could argue about words but I suggest not doing that
giving this my "+1" > Comments welcome, and we'll get back about the plan for > specific work items in a few days. > > Thanks, > Stephen & Sean. > > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
