Hi Robin, Brian, It's not clear why asking whether "IETF specifications need to be designed to protect against pervasive monitoring" without exceptions is "deliberatively provocative."
And Brian, I don't care who met and what anyone through they hummed. It just seems to me that the assertion is extreme. RFC 2804 is at least neutral. It doesn't require swearing allegiance to a particular view or doing anything affirmative for ever activity of the organization. Furthermore, no one has yet defined what is even meant by "pervasive monitoring." That seems rather different from what RFC 2804 is attempting to cover. There might be all kinds of different forms and contexts of platforms that nominally fall under the aegis of pervasive monitoring that are perfectly appropriate if not needed. For example, the use of SMTP on my own network is arguably pervasive monitoring. Watching for malware at gateways is pervasive monitoring. I participate in a great many standards bodies, and have no particular allegiance or reverence for any them, including the IETF. You might consider that the IETF may have just gone off into religious territory of unquestionable belief that does not serve the IETF well. --tony On 11/11/2013 2:26 PM, Robin Wilton wrote:
Since it's not plausible to assume you aren't aware of RFC 2804, I have to wonder whether some of your comments below aren't just meant to be deliberately provocative.
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
