On 8/15/2014 4:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 16/08/14 00:18, Dave Crocker wrote:
It is not about 'no encryption'.
I have only seen you espouse that opinion, which is not
what's in Viktor's draft. Presenting your views as if
those were generally accepted is somewhat distracting.
I apologize.
It never occurred to me -- and I don't believe I have seen community
support for the idea -- that no encryption is reasonable to count as a
form of encryption.
(Also, c.f., my earlier concern that the work here include silliness.)
I also can't comprehend claims that it is a form of encryption.
I myself believe that you are mistaken here and that any
opportunistic security approach has to allow for the
undesirable but potential fallback to no encryption for
some peers (hopefully few) to be viable.
So when I go to order a meal and decide I don't like anything on the
menu and then decide not to get any food, that still counts as having
ordered food?
That's the logic being used here, Stephen.
There is a difference between the larger issue of 'allowing' opting out
of having any encryption, versus calling no encryption a form of encryption.
Without that
there would be too many failure cases that would hinder
interop
With respsect to encryption, no encryption is not a form of encryption
interop.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net