Re: Clarifying Russ's hums

[Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>]

And I realize that encryption without privacy is silly, but...
-=R


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Roberto Peon <[e-mail]> 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 :/
> -=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.
>>
>
>