Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for this important OPS/SEC document, which has improved lately.

I do NOT read this document as: encryption makes live harder for operators, so
we should not do encryption. I read this document as: encryption makes live
harder for operators and we should find different ways to manage networks, if
possible. The point is not to do a value judgment on the "management" function
(ex: HTTP header insertion)Thanks for this improved doc. For me, the key
document aspects are:

   The goal is to help inform future protocol development to
   ensure that operational impact is part of the conversation.  Perhaps,
   new methods could be developed to accomplish some of the goals of
   current practices despite changes in the extent to which cleartext
   will be available to network operators (including methods for network
   endpoints where applicable).


   This document
   lists a collection of functions currently employed by network
   operators that may be impacted by the shift to increased use of
   encryption.  This draft does not attempt to specify responses or
   solutions to these impacts, but rather documents the current state.

OPSAWG mailing list

Reply via email to