Hi Med, On 11/04/17 09:15, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> I hope that the IETF never publishes >> draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits; it makes claims about the >> benefits of specific solutions for different use cases with the >> goal of justifying those solutions. > [Med] I'm afraid this is speculating about the intent of > draft-dolson. Assured this is not the purpose of that document. The > motivation is to document current practices without including any > recommendation or claiming these solutions are superior to others. Just to note that I completely agree with Martin's interpretation of the thrust of this draft and I totally fail to see how your argument above can be justified given that draft title, abstract and even filename (and also the content;-). When the abstract says "This document summarizes benefits" then I cannot interpret that as other than being intended to justify the uses described. A fairly thorough re-write to aim to describe the pros and cons would be a different and more useful document. Similarly a draft that strives to neutrally describe existing reality could maybe be useful (*) but one that only describes middlebox friends with "benefits" is not IMO beneficial ;-) Cheers, S. (*) That is the argument for draft-mm-effect-encrypt, for which I do support publication (apparently in disagreement with Martin in that case:-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature