Subject: IAB considerations

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:19:05 -0600

I finally realized a point of confusion about the various forms of
guidance OPES has received, and I think this should affect the
"considerations" draft.  The WG was chartered with instructions to
address certain issues that more or less correspond to the IAB
considerations.  It is the things that correspond less that are of
concern - particularly the "end-to-end" encryption issue.  I think it
would be helpful to address these in "considerations".

The current consideration draft confuses "privacy" and "undetected
modification" and "encryption".  "Privacy" is about trusting a party
with data that they may use but not disclose.  The detection
modification of data is its "integrity", and it can be ensured by
cryptographic methods, including keyed hashes and public key methods,
but in general, not encryption.  Encryption is used for
"confidentiality", and it can be accomplished by cryptographic
methods, but it is not a way to ensure integrity: encrypted data on
the wire can be undetectably modified by third parties unless a
cryptographic integrity mechanism is used in conjunction with the
encryption.

The current draft characterizes processor identification at content
provider sites as "irrational", which is probably overstating the
issue.  It is also argues that end users cannot identify themselves
usefully to a content provider's internal processors.  Although I don't
disagree that this might be true in some implementations, it isn't
clear that it is impossible in practice.  I think that overall the
viewpoint should clearly distinguish between protocol feasibility
and impact on content provider practices.

Hilarie

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:12:41 -0400

Hilarie,

> modification" and "encryption".  

Could you please work with Abbie and Alex and provide text for the 
draft that would help clarifying and resolving the confusion you 
describe? Thanks!

> and impact on content provider practices.

Agreed, should be reflected in the document.

But even if something is feasible, we need to investigate whether it 
makes sense in practice and respective protocl mechanisms should be 
included in the specification. (Note: this is intended to encourage 
general questions, rather than giving a statement on this specific issue).

-Markus