Keith Moore wrote:

> Peter,
> I think that by now I've made my points and defended them adequately and
> that there is little more to be acheived by continuing a public,
> and largely personal, point-by-point argument.  If you want to continue
> this in private mail I'll consider it.

Okay, but I'd like to make clear that I don't regard this as a "largely
personal...argument". On the contrary, I've drunk beer with you, I like you as
a person and would be happy to drink beer with you again. I am engaging here
*only* because I think the principles I'm defending are so important. It really
is nothing personal.

> The simple fact is that I believe that the idea of interception proxies
> does not have sufficient technical merit to be published by IETF, and
> that IETF's publication of a document that tends to promote the use
> of such devices would actually be harmful to Internet operation and
> its ability to support applications.

Fair enough, but my primary goal was not to justify this particular technique,
but to address the issue of whether we should be preventing the publication of
particular techniques, and under what ground rules. The industry and their
customers have already decided against you on this one. I'm wondering about the
future of an IETF that consistently takes itself out of play in this way. I'm
sure there are other techniques on their way that are going to allow us to find

> p.s. I think the term you're looking for is "nihil obstat".

Yup, that's it. Thanks...


Reply via email to