Hi Scott, On 11/11/2013 08:16 PM, Scott Brim wrote: >> 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. > > Wording issue: "mitigation" is "the action of reducing the severity, > seriousness, or painfulness". It would be best to (optionally) make it > possible to block pervasive monitoring completely. > > Perhaps change "mitigation for" to something like "potential resistance to"?
To be honest, I think mitigation is really more accurate and will be more widely understood. The term is common when considering threats/attacks, whereas "resistance" could require explaining. S. > > > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
