Y. R. Yang wrote: >>> Which one represents P4P/Info Export? Any elaboration? >> Ellipse 2 was the P4P/Infoexport (at least that was the intent, if >> not the delivery.) > > I have to say that this is not the case.
No, Richard, it is not the case. The diagram did not intend to map solutions onto ellipses, but if it had meant to (stupidly, IMO, as solution specifications at this time are still moving targets), probably P4P/Infoexport would have gone into 3. > Thinking more about it, I think it is fair to say that the second meeting > started with a presentation with such a set up: > > Facts: > ----- > Fact 1. Both Eclipse 1 and Eclipse 2 are technically sound and > workable. The WG, not the chairs, are expected to determine whether an approach is technically sound and workable. The goal of the meeting was to start an open discussion about them, and even if such a discussion had already started among proponents of some solutions, the intent was to extend it to the larger group. And I think that, at the end of the day, that is what's actually happened. > Fact 2. ISPs can accept only Eclipse 1 because it can protect ISP > privacy; and P2P can accept only Eclipse 2 because it can > protect P2P privacy. Nope. That is certainly not a "can only", it is probably more like a preference, whose reasons -- scaability, privacy, perceived privacy and so on -- have just started to be openly debated. > To summarize, I greatly appreciate your effort for chairing the working > group. It is a lot of work! It may be much helpful if the agenda has been > sent out earlier for feedback and comments. Well, it was supposed to be an open discussion of the solutions presented during the first session, and days before it had been announced on the list as such. If it turned out not to be the best choice, at least it has had the merit to bring the participants with different although converging views together in the bashing of the chairs. Still an important achievement, even if quite accidental ;-) > Again, let me emphasize that this is a *friendly*, but criticial comment. And thanks for sharing it, such kind of feedback is extremely helpful. -- Ciao, Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
