Hi Christian,
Thanks again for your review. I'll respond inline. In some cases, we
took the feedback from ADs on previous reviews and made no changes to
your points in the previous update. There was some new text from
other reviewers, so I'll run through your updated comments and
hopefully we can come to quick agreement and move forward.
The quoting on this message is non-existent for some reason, so I'll
do my best using my phone which seems to have it.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am using the side by side feature to review the differences between
> draft-13 and draft-15.
>
> I am commenting here on Kathleen's message, to check whether various points
> are addressed.
>
>
> On 1/5/2018 6:07 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>
> Christian,
>
> Thanks for your review. I'll respond inline to make sure we hit each
> point raised. The next version posted may not address your points,
> but the subsequent update should and I expect to have that out soon.
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Christain and others for your reviews. Our running draft
> has addressed most comments received by mid-IETF week. We are working
> on the others. We also received some comments from Kyle Rose and
> Brandon Williams and are working to address those as well.
>
> We'll respond on list when we get to this set of comments.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> The high level summary is that draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt version 13 is
> significantly improved from previous versions, but that the document
> would benefit a lot from additional work. I am not convinced that the
> sections on data center and enterprises belong in this specific document
> - they seem too high level to bring serious information to readers.
> Maybe stage a separate document to survey enterprise issues in some
> depth? I also feel that section 7 is way too speculative for a survey
> document.
>
> Section 7 was previously an appendix and maybe belongs back as an
> appendix, we need to figure that out. There is one particular case
> that a commenter saw the value of access (where he didn't in most
> places) that we may need to figure out how to keep that in the body as
> helpful text.
>
> OK, waiting for the next draft then.
Most of section 7 has been removed int he current revision. A section
remains as it was commented on as being helpful by both Mirja and Kyle
Rose. The old section 7.4 becomes section 7 in the current revision.
>
> Since the comments on data center and enterprises is opinion, I'll
> leave the text in for now. Thanks.
>
> ...
>
> 2. Network Service Provider Monitoring
>
> Section 2, "Network Service Provider Monitoring", has been reorganized
> to focus on management goals rather than simply provide a list of
> existing management tools. The description of the trouble shooting tasks
> in section 2.2 is useful. It makes the point that "application server
> operators using increased encryption should expect to be called upon
> more frequently to assist with debugging and troubleshooting", and that
> could lead to some interesting work in the IETF.
>
> There is paragraph at the end of section 2.1.2, Troubleshooting, that
> states that "the push for encryption by application providers has been
> motivated by the application of the described techniques." I think that
> paragraph is misplaced. As far as I can tell, the application providers
> are first concerned with "content management" techniques that modify
> the data stream. Any change of content has the potential to generate
> bugs that are difficult for the application provider to fix. The second
> concern is "ossification", when traffic characterization based on
> inferred features of the application traffic leads to adverse
> consequences when the application or transport protocols evolve. Neither
> of those is directly relevant to the "troubleshooting" task. Maybe move
> that paragraph higher in the document, e.g. in the introduction of
> section 2? If not that, then maybe move it to section 2.2.2, since one
> purpose of application encryption is indeed to defeat differential
> treatment in the network.
>
> I see your point, but am hesitant to move the text up since there is
> no other general description text in that section heading and this
> just covers applications. I want to comb through all of section 2
> again after this sweep of comments, so we may do a bit more to improve
> this as well within a wider scope of organizational changes.
>
>
> A new paragraph got inserted at the end of section 2.1: "Vendors must be
> aware that in order for operators to better troubleshoot and manage networks
> with increasing amounts of encrypted traffic, ...". That paragraph appears
> to use normative text, "must be enhanced", and loose keywords like "reveal
> cleartext network parameters". I don't much like the idea of a "diagnostic"
> document making specific recommendations about the actual remedy.
The recommendation for improved logging is made elsewhere in support
of a move to a more encrypted Internet, so I think the intent of the
text is fine as it's a general statement and prescriptive, but I see
your point in the language used and propose the text below.
Cleartext network parameters are already revealed, so I'm not sure
what the issue is with that statement. I'll change reveal to access,
as if it is there, they can use it and hopefully we move to a place
where operators are working with application providers when developing
protocols to find the balance stated in 7258.
A gap exists for vendors where built-in diagnostics and
serviceability is not adequate to provide detailed logging and
debugging capabilities that, when possible, can access cleartext
network parameters. In addition to traditional logging and debugging
methods, packet tracing and inspection along the service path
provides operators the visibility to continue to diagnose problems
reported both internally and by their customers. Additional work on
this gap would assist network operators to better troubleshoot and
manage networks with increasing amounts of encrypted traffic.
>
> Also, "vendors" is a strange word there, as it normally implies a
> customer-vendor relation. AFAIK, there is no such relation between
> application service providers like Netflix or Google and the managers of
> specific networks.
The draft does refer to application service providers in relation to
customers as well, so I think vendors is just fine in this regard as
I'm not sure how an operator would refer to the producer of hardware
like routers, switches, NFV devices, etc. I think we'll leave vendors
as it's the equivalent and it the terminology used by operators. This
text was a result of the OPS-dir review.
>
> I get the idea that troubleshooting is a distributed task, that application
> providers could help network troubleshooting by providing better tools, and
> that doing so would be in everybody's best interest. But that can be said in
> a much simpler way than this additional paragraph, without implying
> non-existing contractual relations, and without mandating any specific
> outcome to the future discussions.
I think the new text helps with that and I didn't read the past text
the way you are reading it.
>
>
> I find the discussion of load balancers in section 2.2.1 somewhat
> confusing. It seems to cover three functions: load balancers in data
> centers, load balancers integrated with the network, and a network
> management function that tries to maintain proper connectivity to
> anycast addresses services in the presence of mobility. It might be
> useful to move the discussion of "classic" load balancers to section 3,
> and to discuss the problem of anycast continuity in a separate
> subsection. The anycast discussion seems to assume that the network
> operator alone has to deal with the supposed inadequacies of the
> application providers. It seems obvious that this problem would be much
> better solved by improved handling of mobility in content distribution
> networks, rather than by some complex machinery in the network itself.
> This might need to be stated.
>
> I am reading draft-15, and this section is still very confusing. For
> example, the text says that "Mobile operators deploy integrated load
> balancers to assist with maintaining connection state as devices migrate.
> With the proliferation of mobile connected devices, there is an acute need
> for connection-oriented protocols that maintain connections after a network
> migration by an endpoint." Yet the definition at the beginning of the
> section mentions "integrated load balancers" as "integral part of the
> service provided by the server pool behind that load balancer". To me,
> "integral part of the service" implies that the load balancer and the server
> pool as managed by the same entity, which is providing the application
> service. Yet, the discussion after that seems to imply something rather
> different -- a middlebox deployed by the network provider without
> coordination with the application service provider.
>
> I would really like to see that text rewritten.
This text has been reviewed and edited by multiple contributors.
Mirja helped with the last revision I believe as part of her discuss,
so we're inclined to leave it unless you propose text that she agrees
to.
>
> And I stand by my original comment regarding use of anycast by CDN
> providers. The current text assumes some unilateral action by the network
> provider. It would be much more productive to explain why anycast can be
> problematic in high mobility environments,
If you have text to suggest, we're happy to consider it.
and suggest a future discussion
> on how to resolve the problem. For example, TCPM and QUIC provide support
> for connection migration, which would probably yield much better results
> than guesswork in the middle of the network.
We are trying to stay away from recommendations, hence me changing the
last text to point out a gap rather than have it read as a
recommendation. Your suggestion sounds speculative, so I don't think
it would be a good idea to add that to the draft.
>
> Section 2.2.2 on Deep Packet Inspection could state that it is very
> often possible to classify traffic based on analysis of the encrypted
> data.
>
> And now it does. Thanks.
>
> Audio stream, video streams and web traffic have very different
> signatures, even when encrypted. At the same time, it should also note
> that many application providers are actively working to defeat the
> "unilateral" traffic classification enabled by these techniques,
> complementing encryption with various techniques like multiplexing or
> padding. We could well observe an arms race between more powerful
> network based analysis and smarter application hiding.
>
> The discussion of performance enhancing proxies in section 2.2.3 states
> that "This optimization at network edges measurably improves real-time
> transmission over long delay Internet paths or networks with large
> capacity-variation (such as mobile/cellular networks)." This is not a
> consensual statement. Operators do indeed hope that deploying such
> proxies will improve performance, but independent measurements have
> shown that such proxies often in fact degrade performance. The studies
> that show improvement tend to be based on old network technologies, or
> on ancient TCP stacks. If the authors want to keep a statement like
> that, they should add references to actual measurements. At a minimum,
> the text should note that many application providers disagree with the
> assessment presented here, and that the development of encrypted
> transports such as QUIC is largely motivated by the desire to mitigate
> the negative effects of such "performance-dehancing" proxies.
>
> Do you have references to the studies you are referring to as that
> would be helpful. Thanks.
>
>
> I am searching for references. But I can propose text:
>
> Not everybody agrees that "performance enhancing proxies" actually enhance
> performance in the long term. Proxies are typically measured against a
> nominal version of the transport protocol, and may fix issues encountered in
> that protocol version in a specific environment. On the other hand, by
> "taking responsibility" for the transport protocol, proxies eschew the
> future benefits of transport protocol improvement in the endpoints. For
> example, there is active research on better congestion protocols, or better
> error recovery algorithms, including algorithms better adapted to wireless
> networks. The resulting improvements can be quickly deployed by means of
> system updates, or even application updates in the case of transport
> protocols like QUIC. Experience shows that
some
>network devices are not updated
> with the same frequency. An up-to-date endpoint would have benefited from
> the protocol updates, but would be stuck with the legacy performance if it
> must still use the legacy "optimizer".
I'm struggling with this a bit and would like Al to weigh in, the
wording not being neutral with "" and word choices won't be received
well. From Yoav's posts on middlebox updates to the TLS list, there
are many vendors that are quick to update with protocol developments,
so we don't want to make general statements that aren't necessarily
true, wording has to be very careful. This text also doesn't account
for overlay protocols either. We'd need to include references to add
the examples, so if you have them, that would be helpful.
>
> The discussion of caching in section 2.2.5 correctly states the tension
> between network usage and application control. It could also state the
> inherent privacy risk associated with network based caches: they will
> provide a log of which users accessed what cached content. There is a
> reference to draft-thomson-http-bc-01, but as far as I know the authors
> have abandoned it, in part because they could not solve the related
> privacy issues. In any case, that draft expired several month ago, and
> the reference is probably not appropriate.
>
> Other comments led to that text being updated for the next version.
> The comments received took this as one of many examples, perhaps there
> is a better example that could be used instead of this draft?
>
> Alternate approaches such as blind caches <xref
> target="I-D.thomson-http-bc"/> are being explored to allow caching
> of encrypted content; however, they still require cooperation
> between
> the content owners or CDNs and blind caches and fall outside the
> scope
> of what is covered in this document. Content delegation solves a
> data
> visibility problem with the delegated cache, the impact remains
> for
> the use case where HTTPS encryption limits visibility to offload
> from
> congested links.
>
>
> This was addressed in a separate thread, thanks.
>
> But now, we get additional text in section 2.2.6 on content compression, and
> a new section 2.2.7 on service function chaining.
These were just existing text that was modified and moved around.
>
> The text in 2.2.6 basically says that when the network sees the same
> segments used on multiple connections, it can compress them efficiently.
> That's plausible, but just like in section 2.2.5 we have to note that there
> is an explicit trade-off between compression and privacy. The "segments"
> that could be compressed in 2.2.6 are pretty much the same as the segments
> that could be cached in 2.2.5. Exposing them to the network for compression
> has pretty much the same effect on privacy as exposing them to the network
> for caching. The same caveats should apply.
>
> The new section 2.2.7 describes "service function chaining", which is an
> architecture for distributed implementation of services. We should separate
> there the management function proper, which would distribute functions
> already provided by the network provider, and a future expansion of the
> network that would provide services currently offered by application
> providers. Encryption actually marks a nice delimitation between these two
> notions. Network providers may well convince some application providers to
> make greater use of their "service functions", but that's a business
> negotiation, not an architecture discussion. If and when application
> providers decide to subscribe to the function provided by the network, these
> application providers would devise ways to expose the required data. Or
> then, maybe not.
>
> I would suggest writing the section 2.2.7 in a rather different way. Section
> 2.2 already discusses various functions that could be provided by the
> network, or by the application providers, or by third parties like CDN. We
> can not the trend to organize these functions under the "service function
> chaining" architecture, and the general limitation that if the functions are
> impacted by encryption in the current architecture, they will remain
> similarly impacted after the network provider adopts a "service function
> chaining" architecture. And leave it at that.
This text is from Alia, I believe and covers the topic pretty well
IMO. I'm inclined to leave it as-is since those in the area are good
with it and it doesn't make any bias statements as far as I can see.
The routing area felt this was important as a lot of their work is
with overlay networks at the moment.
>
> In section 2.3.3, Application Layer Gateways, I was wishing it would say
> something about IPv6. But then of course most IPv6 deployments today
> involve a form of NAT64...
>
> If you have text to suggest, we'd be happy to incorporate it.
>
> "The deployment of IPv6 may well reduce the need for NAT, and the
> corresponding requirement for Application Layer Gateways."
Done, thanks for the text.
>
>
> Section 2.3.4 documents the "HTTP Header Insertion" technique. The
> relation between that technique and "Network Service Provider
> Monitoring" is unclear -- header insertion is certainly not a network
> monitoring tool. It is also a highly controversial tool, as documented
> for example in
> https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/7/11173010/verizon-supercookie-fine-1-3-million-fcc.
> I wonder whether it is appropriate to describe this at all in a document
> dedicated to network management, and my simple suggestion would be to
> just remove that section altogether. Failing that, the text needs to be
> modified to note the controversial nature of the process, and its impact
> on privacy. The authors could also note that the function could be
> trivially implemented in the client's browsers if it was really needed
> and approved by the users. There is no technical need to have anything
> like that "in the network".
>
> I see your point, but operators wanted this text in, so how about a
> modification to the last sentence to try to balance it out more? As I
> read the text, it describes invasive uses, so I thought that it was
> clearly something the was not without controversy.
>
> When HTTP connections are encrypted to protect users privacy,
> mobile network service
> providers cannot insert headers to accomplish the, sometimes
> considered controversial, functions
> above.
>
> s/sometimes/often/?
This is still subjective. Any other ideas? I think sometimes sounds
a little more neutral than often.
>
>
> 3. Encryption in Hosting SP Environments
>
> After examining network monitoring in section 2, the draft continues
> with an analysis of "Hosting SP Environments" in section 3, and section
> 4 describes "Encryption for Enterprises". I assume that the initials SP
> stand for "Service Provider" -- spelling it out would not hurt. I really
> wonder whether these sections belong in the document at all, rather than
> being published in separate documents. "Hosting Service Provider
> Environments" appears to be a subset of the general "Data Center"
> problem. It is true that some network providers also provide data center
> services for their customers, but these network providers represent only
> a small fraction of the service hosting industry. Similarly, some
> network providers provide services to enterprises, but there is a wide
> variety of enterprises. It is hard to believe that the authors of an
> individual draft have authority to speak at the same time about network
> services, data centers, and enterprises. In my opinion, it would be
> simpler to just excise section 3 and 4 from this draft, and use the
> content as input for specific drafts describing issues in data centers
> and enterprises.
>
> I'd prefer to keep these sections separate and think others feel the
> same way. Hosted data centers can occur in several layers as well. I
> work for a very large company that provides hosted infrastructure as a
> service, where others offer hybrid cloud options and other outsourcing
> options (application service providers, etc.) on top of this layer.
> It seems you may be thinking of this as a higher level of data center
> offerings than what is deployed in industry. I'd prefer not to get
> into listing them out as we would certainly miss some and it could be
> a confusing list that doesn't help the point of the draft. 4 may not
> be just for enterprise outsourcing options as in the IAAS example
> provided.
>
> I think these sections are weak, and do not bring much to the readers. But I
> said that already.
>
>
>
> In any case, I am puzzled by the reference to Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
> in the introduction of section 3.1. Data exfiltration is indeed a
> security issue, but I knew it primarily as an issue in enterprise
> networks. It does indeed become an issue in data centers when an
> enterprise application is hosted outside the data center, but it is a
> bit strange to see the first reference there. I already suggested to
> move section 3 and 4 out to a different document. Failing that, I would
> suggest reversing the order of section 3 and 4, i.e., discuss enterprise
> issues first and data center issues next.
>
> I think it was contributed there as a result of offerings to
> customers. Before removing it, we'd have to get confirmation that it
> isn't a service provided to many enterprises with outsourced
> solutions. I am pretty sure I had confirmed this point previously as
> RSA offers multiple DLP solutions at several layers. With a quick
> glance, RSA has cloud and data center buzz words in their product
> offering descriptions in addition to network and endpoint.
>
>
> The new text is somewhat better. I wonder whether DLP would merit a separate
> subsection.
>
> Of course the really bad opponents started using encryption long ago, well
> before the IETF's push for privacy. This is not exactly a new problem. Also,
> I would expect them to use a variety of techniques to disguise and hide
> their data streams. Hacking routers comes to mind.
>
I believe we state that encryption has been used for a long time by
those with malicious intent somewhere in the draft.
>
> The discussion of Customer Access Monitoring in section 3.1.1 is a bit
> strange. Most applications control customer access based on the customer
> identity, not based on the IP addresses of the customer -- the whole
> point of the "cloud" is that applications can be accessed from anywhere.
> Some applications do perform additional checks, mainly as a defense
> against stolen credentials, and would attempt to block access if the
> network location does not look plausible for this specific user. These
> are useful techniques, but the relation with encryption of data is
> somewhat thin. It seems to reinforce my point that data center issues
> would best be discussed in a separate document.
>
> There are certainly access restrictions based on IP and protocol
> information, which a 5-tuple and a 2-tuple are often adequate. If you
> are an administrator from a company who outsourced for infrastructure
> and some application support, management access of your customer
> application might be a simple example where this is still used. Sure,
> users are mobile, but they could VPN to their company network and
> connect from an approved IP. I think some of the use cases described
> are examples that are fine and encryption is a very small shift. In
> some of the examples, they serve as possible ways forward for the
> other use cases that haven't adapted yet. Boiling down the details
> and showing that log improvements and transaction monitoring
> improvements in the application or changes in protocols could ease
> this transition is important IMO. It's been a helpful process for
> some of the participants and I hope it helps for future protocol
> development to engage in these tough discussions understanding the
> perspectives on either end of this debate better.
>
> The reminder of section 3 appears to be a high level tutorial on the
> operation of data centers. It is not clear that there is a particular
> problem with encryption there. Indeed, I note that a lot of operators of
> big data centers, such as for example AWS, Azure or Google, have
> voluntarily pushed for increased used of encryption. I don't learn much
> by reading these sections, and I question whether they belong in the draft.
>
> I'll read through it again in a final sweep. We haven't gotten
> complaints about this text, but I'll note your concern in my sweep.
>
>
> In 3.2.1, you could be a bit more explicit about application logging, and
> application manageability in general. Also, maybe not say that "Application
> logging currently lacks detail..." Is that true of every application? In
The problem is pretty wide-spread.
> general, I agree that it would be a good thing to delineate the type of
> information that data center managers would like to find in logs. Of course,
> logging too much has its own issues, such as exposures to breaches of
> privacy or to lawsuits. It seems we need to have a robust discussion leading
> to some kind of best practice document.
I'd love to see follow on work to help tackle this problem with a push
for implementation of the recommendations. Similar work has been done
int he past, but updates would be good. We should also be considering
this with our drafts and recommendations within drafts. I've made a
point of noting that on my IESG reviews when I noticed a gap.
>
>
> 4. Encryption for Enterprises
>
> The discussion on encryption in enterprises would probably benefit from
> input by a variety of enterprise network managers. I found the
> discussion somewhat hard to read. It seems that the authors want to
> tackle three issues: the enterprise as a target for security attacks,
> the enterprise as an application provider, and the enterprise as a
> network provider. These are discussed in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and
> 4.1.3.
>
> The description of attacks in 4.1.1 is somewhat high level. It starts
> from the statement that "A significant portion of malware hides its
> activity within TLS or other encrypted protocols" to draw a requirement
> to monitor encrypted traffic, when in practice there are many other
> monitoring points, from endpoint monitoring to data base activity logs
> to logs at network authentication servers -- as stated in the last
> paragraph of the section.
>
> The monitoring of application performance in enterprises appears
> strangely focused on the "IPv6 Destination Option Header (DOH)
> implementation of Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM)". I
> understand that most big applications solve their monitoring need by
> implementing some form of telemetry, which is not affected at all by
> encryption, yet I see no mention of this telemetry approach in the
> discussion.
>
> Different data centers operate with different architectures and
> approaches. We'd be happy to get text from other network operators.
> I'll also do a sweep of this section and see if I can update it a bit
> more to help along these points. It may come in an update following
> the next one.
>
>
> In 4.1.1 there is a discussion relative to BYOD and exfiltration. Seriously?
> I mean, if I want to exfiltrate data with my phone, I can simply copy the
> data on the phone, and then wait until I am outside the enterprise network
> to exfiltrate it. The solutions that I have seen working involve
> personalized watermarks in downloaded content and post facto retribution
> against the leakers. That is, solutions designed specifically for the
> problem, rather than massive fishing expeditions through encrypted data...
Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't done through other means and it
is. Outsiders who gain access to the internal network are the ones
that exfiltrate data through the network. There are many documented
attacks that target home equipment from key people in organizations
and use that to gain access to the network. This is really not
uncommon behavior and is seen often by incident responders.
>
> I had a hard time reading section 4.1.3, Enterprise Network Diagnostics
> and Troubleshooting. It seems to cover a variety of techniques meant to
> monitor application services without actually instrumenting the
> application, and as such is not very convincing.
>
> Yes, the problem conveyed to us is that there are way too many
> applications that do a poor job of providing troubleshooting data,
> that it is hard to get this to an improved state. Since this was
> discussed a few years ago, I started putting comments on drafts to
> request text on logging to help in the long term. The organizations
> with these issues have also started reaching out to offending
> application developers, but it a long road. It is recognized that
> it's a better long term option. I'll see what we can do with the text
> on this front.
>
>
> OK. What don't you just say so? Proper monitoring of application behavior
> requires proper instrumentation of the application. When applications do not
> have an adequate instrumentation, managers often resort to network-based
> monitoring. This is problematic when the traffic is encrypted."
This is stated in the draft in several places already. I'm not sure
adding it more would be helpful. The edited paragraph above does just
this, so if we should edit that paragraph again, that's fine. We are
all in agreement. One of the purposes of this document is to
highlight these gaps so that operators will have ways to manage the
network going forward. They support encryption and user privacy too,
but have a job to do and are trying to figure out what that means.
>
> My concern is that if an application needs to be updated to allow
> monitoring, it is much more beneficial in the long term to do that by better
> logging, rather than by somehow weakening the encryption. We should find a
> way to say that.
>
>
> The meat of section 4 appears to be in section 4.2, which is covering
> the issue of data loss prevention, and generally detection of data
> exfiltration. Again, this is an issue that would be worth a specialized
> draft.
>
> 5. Security Monitoring for Specific Attack Types
>
> Looks fine, and this review is already very long.
>
> Ack, thanks.
>
> 6. Application-based Flow Information Visible to a Network
>
> Do we need this section at all? It seems that most of the information
> could be captured by adding a small subsection to 2.1. Passive Monitoring.
>
> IPFIX was added at the request of Benoit to more fully cover network
> management protocols in the document. Brian Trammell provided that
> text, so the next version will have an improved section 6.
>
> 7. Impact on Mobility Network Optimizations and New Services
>
> This section appears to be a mix of replication of statements already
> made in section 2, and some speculation on the effect of transport
> header encryption, such as deployed in Web RTC (SCTP over DTLS) or
> planned in QUIC. There are active discussions in the QUIC WG to provide
> alternative to transport header inspection for RTT monitoring, and
> possibly also for packet loss monitoring.
>
> Contrarily to the rest of the document, this section seems speculative
> in nature. It discusses the possible effects of transport header
> encryption on the possible deployment of new services, which do not
> appear to be based on any IETF standard. I think the document would be
> stronger if some of the content of section 7 was moved to the
> appropriate part of section 2, and if the speculative statements were
> published as a separate document.
>
> We need to look at section 7 closer and will do so either in the next
> version or one that follows shortly there after.
>
>
> It is much shorter now, and that's good.
>
> 8. Response to Increased Encryption and Looking Forward
>
> Looks reasonable.
>
> Thanks for your review and helpful comments! Would you be okay with
> an ack for your review and comments in the draft?
>
> OK, as long as I am not presented as endorsing the weakening of
> encryption...
I don't read the draft as doing that, but I'll leave this as your
call. Al and I both support confidentiality for security and privacy
purposes, but unless you work through the hurdles, you'll continue to
have problems deploying encryption. This is a first step in getting
people to work together to create a balance and see increased
deployment of secure encryption.
Thanks, again!
>
> -- Christian Huitema
--
Best regards,
Kathleen