Re: [saag] draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-03

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Al,

I've a general question about this text but will just use the
one example below. There are other examples in the text you
just sent to the list...

On 16/10/16 15:36, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> For an enterprise to avoid costly application down time and deliver
> expected levels of performance, protection, and availability, some
> form of traffic analysis sometimes including examination of packet
> payloads can be a valuable asset.

What is the goal of this text? Is it to a) describe current
or historic practice or b) describe the changes that are
needed when we properly protect things or c) argue that MITM
behaviour is somehow necessary or correct?

I think if the goal were (a) or (b) we would not use the language
above ("valuable asset"), so I'm left wondering if this text is
really aimed at (c).

My understanding is that this draft aims at a mixture of (a) and
(b), and I would have a problem with anything that seems to me
like it has goal (c).

To be clear: if asked to sponsor a document as AD I will not
start a last call for anything with chunks of text that I think
has goal (c). Goals (a) and (b) are of course useful so I'd be
happy to progress such a document. I hope you and Kathleen take
that into account when doing edits to the draft so that we can
all save ourselves some cycles and angst:-)

Thanks,
S.

PS: I realise that this is your initial edit of Nalini's text so
it could be that additional edits are all that's needed here.