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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
