From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
...
agree entirely. but for this to work there have to be folks within
the WG who are willing to raise a fuss.
That's a good point, but there is another question that must always be
asked. When there is no hope of influencing something, then it can be
important to not participate.
My experience is that it's usually possible for an active participate
in an IETF group to influence it in a favorable way. Despite my pessimism
about wrec, I think it may still be possible for it to produce useful
things. If that's found to not be the case, one can ask the ADs to shut
down the group - but the only fair thing to do is to try first.
Participation even in opposition inevitably supports the official position.
30 years ago the word "co-opted" was used to describe the problem.
at some point you need to decide whether you will go along with the
rest of the group or whether you will dissent. but I would argue that
failure to participate in the discussion does more to support the
"official" [your word, not mine] position than participation in the
discussion.
My impression from the two WG documents is that in the WG consensus is
that HTTP interception proxies are at least tolerable and often necessary
and good, and by extension probably also for SMTP and everything else.
the documents aren't published yet. this can serve as a heads-up.
I will note that the wrec list has several new subscribers in the last
day or two.
Yes, I noticed that "W" in "WREC" doesn't stand for "mail". It's also
clear that intercepting or proxying are at most aspects of the "RE" and
the "C", although I don't see how that is relevant to whether the WG is
committed to interception proxies. Draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt must be read
as advocating them, and not only for HTTP or whatever is meant by "Web."
perhaps that is something else that should be fixed...
(or another argument against publication)
Yes, I realize that draft wasn't a product of the WREC WG. The two WREC
documents cannot be read as deprecating interception proxies and can be
read as advocating them by what they fail to say.
yep, and this should be fixed also.
Keith