Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

[Steve Reid <steve@edmweb.com>]

> >Really, the apropriate place for content filtering is at the application 
> >layer. It *could* be done at the transport layer, but that's really not 
> >the place for it.

> Clearly the IETF believed that the network layer was an appropriate
> place for general classification when they developed IPv4.  I haven't
> verified it, but I suspect that IPv6 has (or will have) an appropriate
> mechanism for indicating security classification.  The identical
> mechanism may be used for packet labelling, with the broad

Security classification and "decent/indecent" ratings are rather
different, IMHO. With security, the author of the data has to decide the
best rating for his/her own security. With decent/indecent filtering, the
author has to decide what is best for _other_people_. I suppose it's not 
as bad as that with the third-party ratings in PICS, but there will still 
be inconsistancies.

The main reason I think decent/indecent filtering should be done at the
application level is, if they create a ratings system and later decide
that they've screwed up and another system would be better (which is quite
possible, if you understand the previous paragraph), all that's really
required is re-writing the application software. OTOH, if they did it at
the transport layer and later decided to switch to something else, they
would have to change the protocol, which is very difficult. And, depending
on the changes, they may have to re-write the apps again anyways. 

Also, at the application layer, ANYONE could create their own ratings
system, and the market could decide which is best. (The downside of that 
is that there would be nonstandardized chaos for a while).

Just My Humble Opinion.

=====================================================================
| Steve Reid - SysAdmin & Pres, EDM Web (http://www.edmweb.com/)    |
| Email: steve@edmweb.com   Home Page: http://www.edmweb.com/steve/ |
| PGP Fingerprint: 11 C8 9D 1C D6 72 87 E6  8C 09 EC 52 44 3F 88 30 |
|              -- Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV, IANAL. --                 |
===================================================================:)