Ben,
Yeah, I don't think that's the answer. I think the answer is more
along the lines of products not taking the attitude that they should
work around everyone's broken crap, but instead that they should take
a hard line.
Amen! But, I so rarely see that attitude among vendors.
In short, "be liberal in what you accept" was a terrible idea for
security and its time we dropped it.
I have long said the same re security, even when Jon and I served together
on the IAB. But, as I noted in my reply to Stephen Farrell, we have
middleboxes
that are part of today's (and yesterday's and tomorrow's) reality. They
are not
a potential impediment, they are real, and they impose some limits on
what we _can_ do
technically, in addition to what we _might_ do even if we were confident
that the vast
majority of users want to accept some inconvenience in the name of
improved privacy.
...
But this is exactly the problem: 99% of the time you don't care, so
you argue that we should make it impossible to fix your problem in the
other 1% of cases.
I did not make that argument. I did argue that we ought not impose
degraded user
experiences on 99% of the users, all the time, to enable some users
(probably much less that 1%)
to have high quality, covert communications.
I think the new reality is that you should worry about the 1% of the
time you care and put up with whatever slight hardships it brings for
your 99% case.
Not my reality :-).
Steve
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
