Sad decision by the #IESG : the anti-encryption draft will be published https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt/
If it's TL;DR for you, just read section 2.3.4 claiming the operators have a right to insert HTTP headers.
Ping @1000grues
@bortzmeyer @1000grues The authors use "impacted" six times in the draft which is sufficient, from my point of view, to claim that their draft is a bunch if crap 🤔
@bortzmeyer @1000grues where do they say they have the right to inject headers?
All I see from 2.3.4 is that:
- Operators already inject headers.
- Purposes of the injected headers are controversial.
- It's not recommended to have middleboxes that inject headers - instead, heaeders should be generated by endpoints.
Guess I'll have to read the whole draft...
@Wolf480pl @1000grues "Controversial" was enough to drive me mad. It is not controversial, it is bad and, if encryption prevents it, great.
@bortzmeyer reading this now, I think 2.3.4 specifically does *not* claim that operators have such a right. Instead, it notes IAB guidance (RFC8165) that suggests host-based alternatives to network-based metadata insertion.
@bortzmeyer @1000grues oO