Re: [Tcpcrypt] New version of the charter text

[Tony Arcieri <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:01 PM, ianG <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Well.  I think the RFC should list it as a MAY so that people who read
>  it can be alerted to the fact that they had better figure out how this
> happens and make sure it never happens on their watch.
>
> I don't think it should be a SHOULD because I've yet to see a valid
> reason for it.  All of the reasons so far presented have been handwavy,
> very edge-case or development only.
>
> And I don't see its place in the Charter.  It seems like cursing the
> baby before its been born.


I'm not even sure why it's being considered for the charter. This is not a
feature offered by, say, full disk encryption software, even though people
may wind up double encrypting files. It's also proven not to be a problem
in practice, even though the need to decrypt bypasses things like DMA.

It seems even less important for ubiquitous network encryption, where the
network is far more likely to be the bottleneck.

-- 
Tony Arcieri