Subject: RE: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-0

From: "Michael B. Bellopede" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:13:44 -0400

Dennis-

That is not a fair statement to make to an end-user.  My end-users have no
say about what client software, services, or ISP solutions provided.

-Michael B. Bellopede
 [email-masked]

Leslie Daigle wrote:

> As an end-user, I can be as aware as I like about the security issues,
> but if client software doesn't support security, and/or my ISP, services
> don't support it, there's nothing I can do.
>

Huh? You have a choice: (a) obtain a client that does support
security; and (b) get a new ISP. Both are plentiful.

---

From: Peter Deutsch in Mountain View <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 23:44:45 -0400

Hi Patrik,

Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> At 17.29 -0700 2000-04-07, Peter Deutsch wrote:
> >  LD is intended to sit in front of a cluster of
> >cache engines containing similar data, performing automatic
> >distribution of incoming requests among the multiple caches. It does
> >this by intercepting the incoming IP packets intended for a specific
> >IP address and multiplexing it among the caches.
>
> What you are doing is giving a product to the service provider, which
> is the one which owns the services which you load balance between.
>
> In the case of a transparent proxy which is discussed in this thread,
> the interception is done neither by the service provider (i.e. CNN or
> whoever) nor by the customer, and neither of them are informed about
> what is happening.
>
> That is a big difference.

I agree, and would welcome a BCP document pointing out this distinction
and explaining why the later is harmful. Banning publication of
technologies a priori (as I argue elsewhere) wont stop the technology
being developed, wont stop the practice and just leads to the IETF
abdicating it role as a meeting point for technical innovation.

     - peterd