On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I don't think we have enough data to put any quantitative value on this. What we have is a list of considerations / issues based on input. Suggesting "some" would be as erroneous as suggesting "many". The current titles seems to be neutral in this regard. I don't have any specific issues with adding work "Reported" in title, but does that really add any intrinsic value to the reader? (assuming one reads the draft and does not stop at the title). > > 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's possible solutions deployed by operators may have other technical options, however we lack the full set of data to make claims that other options can be used, or if so, what obstacles need to be overcome to change deployments. There would likely be both technical and business factors those entities need to address to change things. Even if there is agreement and a desire to change things, it often takes time to change production networks which means items listed are factors for consideration. > > 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. > Who do we think we are misleading? The section seems to describe proxies used in mobile networks to deal with real performance issues related to that access network type. As a former mobile network architect and operator, I don't see an issue with what is described. There are real latency issues to deal with there and this is one way some have dealt with them. Even within a single mobile provider's network, there are often varying technical challenges to deal with from market to market. regards, Victor K > >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > >