Re: Adding Security Considerations regarding interception to p1

Hi Mark,

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:50:42AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 19/09/2013, at 5:00 PM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
> 
> > I dunno - I'm still not in love with this - words without teeth are very close to pontificating, and I'd rather hold out for a protocol that actually walks the talk...  Can we do that instead? :-)
> 
> I hear you.
> 
> I'm suspecting we're not going to be able to achieve consensus on this,
> especially since it isn't a technical argument.
> 
> Unless the discussion converges on a broadly acceptable proposal in the next
> day or so, we'll go to LC without this text, and I'll record in the
> shepherd's writeup that this was a contentious issue. Note that one of the
> possible outcomes is that the IESG will send it back to us and instruct us to
> say something about interception; they could also decide we shouldn't. Having
> them make the decision saves us a lot of back-and-forth.
> 
> One thing I'll reiterate; we're not expected to document the complete story
> regarding privacy, interception, etc; the only purpose of putting this text
> in was so that we mention -- not completely define -- the topic. AIUI there
> are other specs in the works for that.

Then what do you think about just describing the current state without
giving any guidance about how to protect, so that the reader informs
himself on the subject if he feels concerned ?

Regards,
Willy

Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 05:10:47 UTC