Re: interception proxies

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> > From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.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