On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Christian Huitema
<huitema(_at_)huitema(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 5/3/2017 9:26 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
The operators are used to manage their network in a certain way.
The change for more encrypted traffic will force a change of those
operational practices.
This document should serve as for a starting point to have this debate
at the IETF, based on the documentation of those operational practices.
My problem is that it is easy to get consensus on some practices, such
as "gathering statistics for traffic engineering", and much less so on
other practices, such as "opening the HTTP headers and adding
supercookies." The current document does not differentiate at all. It it
was published as is, the naive reader could just deduce that "the IETF
endorses adding supercookies to HTTP headers" -- to take just one
example. I understand that documenting alternatives for each of these
practices in the analysis document is impractical, but we need to find a
way to "document the controversy" -- when it exists of course.
There's an explicit statement that says the IETF does not endorse the
documented practices. It's not the practices, but the overall
document that we should have consensus on - that it is important to
document these practices so we have a starting point for discussion.
As Brian suggested, the follow on documents could do just that for
individual practices. It's good to understand what is happening in
reality so we can help solve problems.
For the supercookie example, it is meant to be read with the preceding
text, which essentially does say what you are requesting - this is
something we don't want to happen - without a conversation, we won't
reach balance. I'll clear up the text for that in the next version if
we haven't already.
-- Christian Huitema
--
Best regards,
Kathleen