%% You should probably cite draft-pep-rating instead of this I-D. @techreport{marques-pep-rating-01, number = {draft-marques-pep-rating-01}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-marques-pep-rating/01/}, author = {HernĂ¢ni Marques and Bernie Hoeneisen}, title = {{pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Mapping of Privacy Rating}}, pagetotal = 12, year = 2019, month = mar, day = 11, abstract = {In many Opportunistic Security scenarios end-to-end encryption is automatized for Internet users. In addition, it is often required to provide the users with easy means to carry out authentication. Depending on several factors, each communication channel to different peers may have a different Privacy Status, e.g., unencrypted, encrypted and encrypted as well as authenticated. Even each message from/to a single peer may have a different Privacy Status. To display the actual Privacy Status to the user, this document defines a Privacy Rating scheme and its mapping to a traffic-light semantics. A Privacy Status is defined on a per-message basis as well as on a per-identity basis. The traffic-light semantics (as color rating) allows for a clear and easily understandable presentation to the user in order to optimize the User Experience (UX). This rating system is most beneficial to Opportunistic Security scenarios and is already implemented in several applications of pretty Easy privacy (pEp).}, }