From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.passe0815.de (mail.passe0815.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:100:2384::20:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF33421F5BA; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.passe0815.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.passe0815.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704F3586CDB; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:17:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:170:1112:0:6d26:7e95:359e:3a7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.passe0815.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D76E6586CC7; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:17:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:17:36 +0200 From: Linus =?utf-8?Q?L=C3=BCssing?= To: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List Message-ID: <20151006151736.GI12763@odroid> References: <20151006134915.GF12763@odroid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-GPG-Mailgate: Not encrypted, public key not found Cc: fcc@lists.prplfoundation.org, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat , OpenWrt Development List Subject: Re: [Cake] [Battlemesh] [OpenWrt-Devel] the cerowrt project's letter to the fcc about the wifi lockdown is nearly final X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:18:07 -0000 On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:21:38PM +0200, Benjamin Henrion wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Lüssing wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:13:36AM +0200, Dave Taht wrote: > >> Comment away! > > > > There are many good points made in this text. > > > > I like the Volkswagen example and the suggestion to require > > opening up the firmware. > > > > For the latter, had been thinking about that before briefly, > > but kind of dismissed it early, basically because the reasoning in > > my head was that FCC shouldn't make any requirements regarding > > the form of the software at all. They should only regulate the > > result. > > Blobs cannot be trusted to do the right thing. I know (and I guess we all do here?). I don't get the purpose of this comment, sorry :(.