Re: Clarifying Russ's hums

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 07/11/2013 11:12, Roberto Peon wrote:
> At least one of the questions (and probably two of 'em) for which we hummed
> was unclear enough that I couldn't interpret it as a policy statement.
> 
> In particular: "The IETF should strive for e2e encryption even when there
> are middleboxes in the path":
>  - encryption with/without privacy?
>  - encryption with/without authentication?
>  - do authorized/explicit middleboxes count?
> 
> This is too ambiguous for me to interpret in any meaningful way :/

I think the word "strive" is the key. According to Merriam-Webster
(where it's shot into the top 10% of lookups for some reason) it means
"to devote serious effort or energy" to something. I don't see that
we need to resolve all the ambiguities before we adopt the goal
of striving for e2e encryption.

Also could you define what you mean by 'privacy'?

   Brian

> -=R
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Scott Brim <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that all three are perfecly clear as aspirational goals,
>>> and that they all include some room for interpretation. It's also true
>>> that
>>> some of them may be in immediate conflict with other goals (for example,
>>> a web proxy that is blind to the content might be rather bad at content
>>> filtering). But all that will come out in the detailed analysis of each
>>> issue. Guiding principles really have to skate over many details.
>>>
>> Yes but as presented these could be taken as clear policy statements, not
>> just guiding principles. I thought embarking on clarifying them asap would
>> be a good idea.
>>
>