Hiya, A friendly amendment: On 14/07/2025 00:01, John C Klensin wrote:
But that leads to a second question, which is whether the community should expect decisions to use such tools to to be accompanied by a public analysis of the risks and tradeoffs that led to the decision to go ahead.
That'd be one way to do things, but at a cost for the tools team in terms of effort, and a risk for them in terms of being liable to be asked by the community to bring them a rock. An alternative and maybe better way to handle this might be for those in the community (who care) to document their current/recent preferences so that the tools team can decide when to live with those or when not to do that. E.g. as I said I use NoScript with FF, but I'm not sure how many other IETFers might, which would affect how the tools team consider adopting things that do/don't work well in such a setup. There're probably a bunch of ways to group the kind of oddball setups we use (I'm guessing quite a few IETFers may have oddball setups:-), to try to identify common techniques (e.g. restricting JS, blocking tactics etc.) and to maybe try figure out how many people have each kind of setup. FWIW, I might be willing to help with such a thing, if there's some liklihood it'd be useful. (Maybe a hackathon project for later.) Cheers, S.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
