On 07/11/2013 11:12, Roberto Peon wrote: > At least one of the questions (and probably two of 'em) for which we hummed > was unclear enough that I couldn't interpret it as a policy statement. > > In particular: "The IETF should strive for e2e encryption even when there > are middleboxes in the path": > - encryption with/without privacy? > - encryption with/without authentication? > - do authorized/explicit middleboxes count? > > This is too ambiguous for me to interpret in any meaningful way :/ I think the word "strive" is the key. According to Merriam-Webster (where it's shot into the top 10% of lookups for some reason) it means "to devote serious effort or energy" to something. I don't see that we need to resolve all the ambiguities before we adopt the goal of striving for e2e encryption. Also could you define what you mean by 'privacy'? Brian > -=R > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> It seems to me that all three are perfecly clear as aspirational goals, >>> and that they all include some room for interpretation. It's also true >>> that >>> some of them may be in immediate conflict with other goals (for example, >>> a web proxy that is blind to the content might be rather bad at content >>> filtering). But all that will come out in the detailed analysis of each >>> issue. Guiding principles really have to skate over many details. >>> >> Yes but as presented these could be taken as clear policy statements, not >> just guiding principles. I thought embarking on clarifying them asap would >> be a good idea. >> >