Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for handling my other comments, the abstract and intro for setting context are much improved. I found some sections still though need some neutrality/tweaking, others have already provided detailed comments. For me, section 8 as the "way forward" is especially weak and confusing. As the last section of a very detailed, lengthy document, a more concise, stronger summary is needed on the purpose of the document. "Changes to improve encryption or to deploy OS methods have little impact on the detection of malicious actors; they already have access to strong encryption." And the last two sentences cast a foreboding outlook: "..but make passive monitoring broadly cost prohibitive. This is meant to restrict monitoring to sessions where there is reason to have suspicion." The End for this 40-page story? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
