On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/14/17 14:17, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> On 11/14/17 11:42 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>> - HTTP header insertion / "enrichment" (in many scenarios) >>> - Content filtering (to some people, in some situations) >>> - Performance-enhancing proxies (in some deployments, as they add to >>> ossification) >>> - Customer access monitoring (to some people, in some situations) >>> - Content compression (depending on how it's interposed) >>> >> Perhaps the devil is in the detail in each of these cases, but in >> sorting through them there are probably authorized ways to accomplish >> certain goals, while others might need to be left behind. It seems like >> in most of these cases it comes down to a matter of authorization, and >> the relationship between parties. I don't think that's for this >> document to delve too deeply into, but as one decides which problems to >> work on later, at that point, teasing out those aspects may be >> worthwhile. Starting with a statement of what the issues they are >> facing are is pretty much factual. Whether we choose to address those >> issues over time is separate. > > > And the goalposts go shooting off into the distance. > > Mark is right. The questionability of some of these practices in some of the > ways they have been deployed argues against the use of the word "ideally". Thanks Mark for spotting this, we'll address it in the update. > > /a > -- Best regards, Kathleen