Re: [perpass] Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01

[<[e-mail]>]

Where are these being discussed? It's a response to an IETF draft, ergo [e-mail] is entirely appropriate. That Perens doesn't submit it as an internet-draft in response just suggests lack of political nous.

Way to go on the selective quoting - I see you ignore the DRM point. Sheesh, you can't even give a pointer to the refutations you apparently cite.

Don't you have anything substantial to say yourself, other than snarky oneliners?

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: Ted Lemon [[e-mail]]
Sent: 04 December 2013 22:42
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Discussion; perpass; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01

On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:05 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> This is a political problem, not a technical problem. From a technical perspective, caching static content matters.  Trying to figure out problems that aren't security problems matters. Mandating secure communications for worldwide http is pretty much the same as mandating secure encrypted email worldwide - large failure modes, resulting in an inability to communicate. Which is why use of secure email is not widespread.

I take it you haven't been reading the responses to Bruce's essay, or you would have seen that these points have already been discussed and refuted.