[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on latest IPSP drafts
Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM Research says:
> Perhaps changing the IETF from an engineering to a political body is an
> effective way to proceed. I disagree.
And then says
> This is not a fair representation of what I have been saying. I am
> not arguing that we should "... limit the Global Internet ..." and I
> am happy to see DESor other strong encryption as an optional part of
> the standard. I simply that making it a **required** part of the
> standard is ignoring a fact of the world that is real, whether we
> like it or not.
Sorry, but government regulations aren't an engineering problem, they
are a political problem. They are not "real" the way that engineering
problems are real -- they are something that exists at the whim of a
government, unlike our systems, which have to obey the laws of physics
and the problems of what we know how to do. We can't change the laws
of physics, but the laws of government are subject to arbitrary
revision.
I and others have favored ignoring the regulations while standardizing
precisely because we are an engineering body. We engineer the best
system we can. If the politicians then decide that they don't want us
to have the best, they get to go in front of their people and justify
the fact that they want their people to be crippled. We will have our
hands clean -- we will not have violated our sacred duty as engineers.
I mean that last bit quite literally. Just as a doctor has a duty to
do the best job he can, I believe that it is my duty as an engineer to
always do the absolutely best job that I can. I feel that my personal
honor would be violated by anything less. I refuse to support
something crippled that gives people a false sense of security simply
to satisfy politicians. The politicians have to be the ones to tell
the users of my design that they can't import it or export it or
whatever. The blood is then on their hands, not mine.
Perry
References: