Benoit Claise wrote:
The operators are used to manage their network in a certain way.
the ways operators manage their networks is highly varied.
but, in reality, what packet data do i need beyond the basic four-tuple
and congestion markings?
The change for more encrypted traffic will force a change of those
operational practices.
not necessarily. of course it will seriously impact those operators
doing dpi, http header insertion, etc. many of us consider this a
feature of encryption not a bug.
This document should serve as for a starting point to have this debate
at the IETF> practices.
it is. and it should not go forward until we have had this debate. and
we clearly have significant differences today.
based on the documentation of those operational practices.
the set of operational practices is manifold.
Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
There's an explicit statement that says the IETF does not endorse the
documented practices.
standard wiggle 14.3. please specifically call them out as negatively
affecting privacy and dis-recommended.
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 christian alluded, the practices are not a closed set.
Pete Resnick wrote:
I cannot come up with any way to read the mention of super cookies in
section 8 as an endorsement at all.
or as an anti-endorsement. so you would lay out the road map with no
marking of the evil paths.
Either way, lack of overt disapproval is not endorsement.
in the real world of "buy our X device which implements rfc 666's
description of how to murder users" it is endorsement.
randy