Benoit Claise wrote: > The operators are used to manage their network in a certain way. the ways operators manage their networks is highly varied. but, in reality, what packet data do i need beyond the basic four-tuple and congestion markings? > The change for more encrypted traffic will force a change of those > operational practices. not necessarily. of course it will seriously impact those operators doing dpi, http header insertion, etc. many of us consider this a feature of encryption not a bug. > This document should serve as for a starting point to have this debate > at the IETF> practices. it is. and it should not go forward until we have had this debate. and we clearly have significant differences today. > based on the documentation of those operational practices. the set of operational practices is manifold. Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > There's an explicit statement that says the IETF does not endorse the > documented practices. standard wiggle 14.3. please specifically call them out as negatively affecting privacy and dis-recommended. > It's not the practices, but the overall document that we should have > consensus on - that it is important to document these practices so we > have a starting point for discussion. as christian alluded, the practices are not a closed set. Pete Resnick wrote: > I cannot come up with any way to read the mention of super cookies in > section 8 as an endorsement at all. or as an anti-endorsement. so you would lay out the road map with no marking of the evil paths. > Either way, lack of overt disapproval is not endorsement. in the real world of "buy our X device which implements rfc 666's description of how to murder users" it is endorsement. randy