Re: Clarifying Russ's hums
Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 22:19 UTC
Return-Path: <arturo.servin@gmail.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 3BA3321E8094 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:19:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QU+jnCWIb5A1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:19:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3038411E80E2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:19:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b13so144457wgh.22 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:19:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ftF+Y79DUD8CPu31tC6qNTpOpXWwPM7ZPGxVl+9TPl0=; b=qz/TSJbRdir9H0lARMM3L/kb53/yQclRDiENpVEccksz6ve0cQNYFqk/6Xj/RzzPah IzTD1oi+x03/UJdARyugIfwc+FPVL3fOctqwmHbxnodKNPq9ogqYMJZZqPOlGnv17Z/d 52N8DoxpKo8XuffL+CWdsJ7NgVseEPJ3WBGu8fSS8KQrtO/GfD7a2m1vZOh2L6E6M1C9 lP1mLPLZWGvRtIIfqYptYekAjFUL2lKFnP0xV2wQH/0SeZly3NfUcU3F34RBJRqqxT3x 4tff/d8d6auQ1utJpI4yhQ7fjcnZH2iqpUEBSVICTqDsGIPjLvkreLfRD4qOVT/oGliF kXqQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.90.116 with SMTP id bv20mr4246910wib.50.1383776385105; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:19:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.42.4 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:19:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNdOLOJPjCRAN-40_FbZx9yQZqFR1maeCKwnoum9+YbvqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPv4CP_UiuDTshnz-vzb7aTQEV-UrdyXiYb70iR72YQSi_3H1w@mail.gmail.com> <527AB909.4040108@gmail.com> <CAPv4CP-BjyD8DFytZtcike3tHufGJJrDEjyTbJsroANbBeqLpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdOLOJPjCRAN-40_FbZx9yQZqFR1maeCKwnoum9+YbvqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:19:24 -0200
Message-ID: <CALo9H1ZKvmSWN0PNpwuywMusYfwXD+HjGP7G=yzeXKk196fg+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Clarifying Russ's hums
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c7f4ee206dd04ea898bff"
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:19:47 -0000
Perhaps because I was reading the transcript it were clear to me. Anyhow, these are high level goals. We need to build the details along the path. /as On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> 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 <scott.brim@gmail.com> 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. >> > >
- Clarifying Russ's hums Scott Brim
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Scott Brim
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Roberto Peon
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Arturo Servin
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Roberto Peon
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Yoav Nir
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums John C Klensin
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Roberto Peon
- Re: Clarifying Russ's hums Masataka Ohta