Brian,
Thank you for a thoughtful, well-stated, reasonable comment that seeks to
achieve compromise with the points of view of all being considered.
Nalini
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:48 AM Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:42 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> One individualistic data point on this sub-topic, and a real point:
>>
>> On 20/03/2019 01:13, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> > My impression is there are people who will not be satisfied until all
>> traffic looks
>> > identical and you have zero way to protect your home,
>>
>> I do not claim that everyone ought do the same, but I absolutely
>> do claim that encouraging voluntary policy adherence by dealing
>> with the people using the n/w is preferable to many egregiously
>> invasive attempts to force technical policy enforcement on
>> unwilling serf-like users.
>>
>
> So, this is the problem:
> - If a network operator has any policy that is enforceable, ONLY the
> technical policy enforcement model scales.
> - In such an environment, there are only, ever, "willing users", because,
> in order to use the network, they are required to agree to the policies..
>
> This makes the argument you have above, a vacuously defined one.
> You want to encourage voluntary policy adherence for a non-existent set of
> otherwise unwilling users.
>
> I understand your position: you would prefer that {some,all} networks were
> not employing policies that {you,some people} disagree with.
> I sympathize, but I disagree. What we need are mechanisms that scale.
> My position (personally) is that we find ways to have scalable, technical
> mechanisms.
> They should allow users (or machine administrators) to be as compliant as
> they are willing, and no more.
> They should allow networks to enforce their policies, while treading as
> lightly as possible.
> It should be possible to use technical means to handle this negotiation
> with little to no user input required.
> The analogy is roughly that of escalation-of-force in law enforcement,
> starting at a level of "polite requests".
>
> You can disagree, but I implore you: please don't stand in the way of
> those wanting to find consensus on scalable, flexible, technical solutions
> that encompass a wide range of network policies and enforcement needs.
>
> The main point is, I believe the end result will be mechanisms that allow
> you to deploy networks that meet your needs, and software that you can
> configure to bypass such controls, but that neither of those should ever be
> the default configurations.
>
> If the results allow you to do what you want/need, and also allow others
> to do what they want/need, everyone should be happy enough with the result.
>
> Can we at least agree on this as a desired goal for this work?
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> d...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
