Re: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,
At 12:48 27-11-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>Well, only to the same extent that any cycle of threats emerging
>and us figuring out mitigations is an ongoing process, so I don't
>see this as being different in that respect, after we've taken the
>step to recognise that its an attack that we ought try mitigate.

Ok.

>Yes. (As stated in the References section.) The idea there is
>to start by collating text from the various drafts that people
>have already sent to the perpass list. I hope we'll get a draft
>of that in the not-too-distant but I'm pretty sure that most
>everyone is already familiar with the gist of the problem
>here - certainly well enough to express support or not for
>this draft when it gets to a last-call.  (And personally I'm
>hoping that LC on this one will start in the near future.)

Ok.

>That term was a bikeshed [2] on the perpass list already  (including
>a mail from your good self:-)

I did mention that it was a nit. :-)

>I figure s/bad actor/actor/ as suggested by PSA was the best
>change. (I've a few other minor changes to make as a result
>of discussion on that list as well, hope to get -01 out with
>those over the weekend.)

I'll defer to the authors as I have already done the nitting/bikesheding. :-)

>I'm not sure if you're suggesting some change there but I think the
>point you make above is already made in the (very short) draft in
>which case repeating it wouldn't be that useful.

The first sentence could say that it is a combined security and privacy threat.

>Yeah, I like his draft too. I was quite tempted to AD-sponsor partly
>to see how it irritates overly-process-oriented folks :-)

The simplicity is itself a statement (see draft-thomson-perpass-statement-00).

Regards,
-sm