Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It seems to me there are 3 ways the world could go, and no 4th option:
1. Something OPES-like will be standardised in the IETF
2. Something OPES-like will be standardised in another organisation,
perhaps one with less clue than the IETF about scaling and security.
3. Non-standardised OPES-like things will be widely deployed.
Pick the one you prefer.
One would hope the lack of a credible 'Security Considerations' section
would give the IESG the justification to prevent option 1 (but there should
be plenty of other reasons). I suspect the reason this is even being
discussed in the IETF is that the alternative organizations required for
option 2 were significantly more clueful and told them to go far away, very
far away. So that would leave us with option 3, which is happening anyway.
This leaves the basic question; why are we wasting valuable meeting room
slots on a brain-dead idea where the primary beneficiaries are violating
laws, and the envisioned legal uses can't be obtained with end-to-end
security?
The IESG needs to do some serious navel gazing over the decision to even
allow a BOF on this one.
Tony
Agreeing with MO about the seriousness of the long-term impact of this path
...