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

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Sure, I also figured in the mean time that using a different word could help. However, from the operators perspective there has to be something good which provides an actual positive value for them, otherwise it would not justify the costs. 

However, I strongly agree that "benefits provided to the Internet“ is completely overstated. Maybe this should be "benefits provided to the network“ or "benefits for the network operator“ but I also do believe that the operators do this because they want to improve „the Internet“ and doing something within their own network is the only handle the (currently) have. Or, as you say, we just don’t use the word benefit at all if that helps!

Mirja


> Am 12.04.2017 um 15:29 schrieb Matthew Ford <[e-mail]>:
> 
> 
>> On 12 Apr 2017, at 12:52, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> describe the benefits in the sense of why do operator deploy those middleboxes.
> 
> Then don’t call them ‘benefits’ - they aren’t universally of benefit. Call them ‘motivations’ or something, but I think a lot of people are reacting to the use of the word ‘benefit’ as that tends to imply something that is necessarily good. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Mat