IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-11

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2A71294DB; Fri, 5 May 2017 16:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YU13aOZZrLOW; Fri, 5 May 2017 16:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67B0C126CD6; Fri, 5 May 2017 16:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1d6muX-0007XW-8E; Fri, 05 May 2017 23:45:21 +0000
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 08:45:19 +0900
Message-ID: <m2h90y27hs.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-11
In-Reply-To: <e220add1-b124-1eed-a01e-fa5aab557aa3@cisco.com>
References: <C49A16E7-1680-4FC9-A423-15A32EFF3D8F@mnot.net> <21A01174-4FB6-4F8C-AA3D-DCF6D1FEBA01@trammell.ch> <8cb6fefd-200e-1d90-6a36-c32530ecbaf8@cisco.com> <8114ef76-591f-630e-5464-2b63d0efea61@huitema.net> <BF887C92-1ADD-47F7-A958-04538372AA15@qti.qualcomm.com> <BD3807D4-6253-4A3E-BA34-00CA1DAB5037@mnot.net> <77af81f1-5ab0-c94c-4f3d-9d31edf55b2b@cisco.com> <777c900d-8be2-a41c-c7ea-5705a9b1405e@nostrum.com> <e220add1-b124-1eed-a01e-fa5aab557aa3@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UUqmNbHBiEnxJKDYNqnibN81wuo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 23:45:24 -0000

> What is disingenuous is reviewing a document to death, requiring
> consensus on people's expressed concerns

aside from the hyperbole, i think this is what we're supposed to be
doing

> then claiming, “oh no, we're not stopping publication”.

puhleeze.

there seems to be some useful disagreemet here; and it would help if we
focused on it and tried to work it through until we can get consensus.

< stating what might be obvious >

as i read it, a fair number of folk (i among them) think that a number
of practices described neutrally in the document should be flagged as
negative.

the reason this is an important distinction is that if and when we get
downstream to writing documents more in the solution space, the
behaviors marked as negtive do not need to be spported.  e.g. some see
encryption preventing http header insertion as a feature, not a bug.

and it is ok to have this discussion.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email