> I am writing to request that the RFC Editor not publish
> draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt as an RFC in its current form,
> for the following reasons:
> 2. A primary purpose of the NECP protocol appears to be to
> facilitate the operation of so-called interception proxies. Such
> proxies violate the Internet Protocol in several ways:
> 3. Aside from the technical implications of intercepting traffic,
> redirecting it to unintended destinations, or forging traffic from
> someone else's IP address - there are also legal, social, moral and
> commercial implications of doing so.
You will need to be far more specific here. I see absolutely nothing that
is not legal, is not social, or is not moral. I do see commercial
implications, but whether those are is "good" or "bad" is not a technical
judgement.
> In my opinion IETF should not be lending support to such dubious
> practices by publishing an RFC which implicitly endorses them, even
> though the authors are employed by major research institutions and
> hardware vendors.
I take the contrary position. The IETF ought to be encouraging the
documentation of *all* practices on the net. It is far better that they
are documented where people can find useful information when they see this
kind of packet activity rather than have them known only to a few
cognescenti.
May I suggest that one treat this in its classical sense - as a Request
for Comments and that those who have technical objections or technical
enhancements publish those comments in an additional document rather than
try to suppress the original one.
Having a document trail that shows what paths and ideas have been found
wanting is nearly as important has having a trail that show what paths
have been found useful.
--karl--
