Since we're talking about the title, I had a different reaction to it; currently, it reads as if *all* operators are necessarily affected by pervasive encryption. In the discussions I've had, the great majority of operators have said they are not affected by pervasive encryption (YMMV, of course), so I wonder if a title like "Reported Effects of Pervasive Encryption on Operators" or "Effects of Pervasive Encryption Purportedly Encountered by Some Operators" would be more appropriate. Even then, many of the areas discussed lack important context about whether or not there are other options to achieve the same goal, and how prevalent their use by operators is. For example, the sections on Content Compression and Content Encryption beg these questions. It might be useful to have a list of potential effects on network operators without that context, but some of the items still seem to be written in a way that assumes the intrinsic value and uniqueness of the technique being discussed (e.g., Performance Enhancing Proxies), which can be deeply misleading (despite the attempt at positioning in the Introduction). If this were Wikipedia, I'd say there were several NPOV issues remaining here. A few more comments: 1. Introduction - "Ideally, new methods could be developed to accomplish the goals of current practices despite changes in the extent to which cleartext will be available to network operators." It's not at all clear that this would be ideal, since the goals of some of the documented practices are quite questionable, both technically and ethically. 2.2.5 Caching and Content Replication Near the Network Edge - "Web proxies are widely used [WebCache]" -- the reference covers four US-based mobile networks, only two of which deployed caching (table 1), so it's hardly supporting this claim, and the claim itself is about proxies, not caching. Forward proxy caching (which is the relevant thing here) has been steadily declining in deployment for years, partially because of the increased deployment of encryption, but also because content providers don't trust forward proxies; they have a reputation of too often taking liberties with serving stale responses. 2.2.5 Caching and Content Replication Near the Network Edge - "... and caching is supported by the recent update of "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching" in [RFC7234]." Caching was first supported by RFC1945, HTTP/1.0. 2.3.4 HTTP Header Insertion - I'm deeply uncomfortable with having this text in an IETF document without a LOT more context. 4.1.3.3 HTTP Service Calls - This is confusing; it it talking about sniffing the back-end service calls, or the original request? Cheers, > On 13 Nov 2017, at 2:30 pm, Victor Kuarsingh <victor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Kathleen, > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I concur with most of Stephane’s comments. And I find the use of the term “pervasive encryption” very problematic. Pervasive means: >>> >>> “(especially of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout an area or a group of people.” >>> >>> More encryption is never unwelcome to the enduser. >> >> Could you propose an alternate title? We used the term ubiquitous >> previously, and it was changed in a prior IETF list discussion to the >> current title. >> > > The general definition when comparing various dictionaries seems to > associate the word "pervasive" with the common meaning of "spread > throughout". > > Based on that, the title seems appropriate. > > regards, > > Victor K > > >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/