Subject: [Captive-portals] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-capport-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 19:28:11 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-capport-00-03: Yes

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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-capport/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Warren responded nicely to my comment on the 00-01 version about

"As endpoints become
inherently more secure, existing interception techniques will become
less effective or will fail entirely."

and I understand that a previous version that attempted to say
"inherently more secure because X mechanisms are being deployed" was
problematic, but the current text still sounds like we're thinking happy
thoughts, and I know you aren't. 

Would it be any less problematic to say "inherently more secure in
response to X security threats"? Where X might be "pervasive
surveillance", "DNS spoofing", etc?

"No" might be a perfectly reasonable answer ...