Hi Enrico, I will agree with encryption if there is some information specified in the ALTO protocol considered "private" as you enumerated : )
BR, Haibin > -----Original Message----- > From: Enrico Marocco [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 5:11 PM > To: Song Haibin > Cc: 'Richard Alimi'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [alto] > Newdraftnotification:draft-wang-alto-privacy-load-analysis-00 > > Song Haibin wrote: > > I'm concern about the logic between (3a), (3b) and (3c). > Like Enrico > > said, ALTO servers SHOULD NOT provide anyone with information they > > don't want to get redistributed. Then I don't see any necessary to > > encrypt the ALTO information. > > No, wait, there's a bug in this reasoning. Encryption is > still very necessary to preserve user privacy, i.e. to let an > ALTO server provide a user with information the user > themselves may consider confidential (e.g. their own > uplink/downlink capacity). But of course if the user is > willing to redistribute even such potentially-confidential > information, there is no means for the server to prevent that. > > -- > Ciao, > Enrico > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
