Re: draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits (was RE: Review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

On 11/04/17 09:15, [e-mail] wrote:
>> I hope that the IETF never publishes
>> draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits; it makes claims about the
>> benefits of specific solutions for different use cases with the
>> goal of justifying those solutions.

> [Med] I'm afraid this is speculating about the intent of
> draft-dolson. Assured this is not the purpose of that document. The
> motivation is to document current practices without including any
> recommendation or claiming these solutions are superior to others.

Just to note that I completely agree with Martin's interpretation
of the thrust of this draft and I totally fail to see how your
argument above can be justified given that draft title, abstract
and even filename (and also the content;-). When the abstract
says "This document summarizes benefits" then I cannot interpret
that as other than being intended to justify the uses described.

A fairly thorough re-write to aim to describe the pros and cons
would be a different and more useful document. Similarly a draft
that strives to neutrally describe existing reality could maybe
be useful (*) but one that only describes middlebox friends with
"benefits" is not IMO beneficial ;-)

Cheers,
S.

(*) That is the argument for draft-mm-effect-encrypt, for which I
do support publication (apparently in disagreement with Martin in
that case:-)