On 8/15/2014 4:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > On 16/08/14 00:18, Dave Crocker wrote: >> It is not about 'no encryption'. > > I have only seen you espouse that opinion, which is not > what's in Viktor's draft. Presenting your views as if > those were generally accepted is somewhat distracting. I apologize. It never occurred to me -- and I don't believe I have seen community support for the idea -- that no encryption is reasonable to count as a form of encryption. (Also, c.f., my earlier concern that the work here include silliness.) I also can't comprehend claims that it is a form of encryption. > I myself believe that you are mistaken here and that any > opportunistic security approach has to allow for the > undesirable but potential fallback to no encryption for > some peers (hopefully few) to be viable. So when I go to order a meal and decide I don't like anything on the menu and then decide not to get any food, that still counts as having ordered food? That's the logic being used here, Stephen. There is a difference between the larger issue of 'allowing' opting out of having any encryption, versus calling no encryption a form of encryption. > Without that > there would be too many failure cases that would hinder > interop With respsect to encryption, no encryption is not a form of encryption interop. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net