Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 15 July 2015 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8A91A88ED for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6gcpk6f37E3k for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93DC51A8755 for <93attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6F8ODHo030941; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:24:13 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk t6F8ODHo030941
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1436948654; bh=zseFtp9xevMvEWHV+SVVqhcwP2U=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=VdEplkkfgk0iVqiAmhjCma/STSssWShWsFUf9C/5FOFMHNzkj9s1L9huopLzqDE9n D2jfAZC7NZF5LbbZlOfRnIuy2fkjLSLQSV6mscItVALBgSeZf1H8l/seeOVkPqr3rc nAzkFD25nwgtQfty1cVAj0j8VVXgYwQixSj4OFh4=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id r6E9OD3258301668ka ret-id none; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:24:14 +0100
Received: from [10.1.11.13] ([194.82.140.195]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6F8MsV0019970 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:22:55 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C3F1E8EC-A553-4F2D-ABA8-ACBCE493053F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150715040748.GC1862@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:22:56 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2eb2eb50c849aabebaf34ec169ed117dr6E9OD03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|DB039D15-5BD3-4AF5-BD18-79B76AE02CE8@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <55A41BEB.3090102@hs-augsburg.de> <55A52719.1000208@gmail.com> <CAO_Rpc+-fQBU+MuOR03VHDgw3HcbOWPcThUR3nR2Vnj9CcM63w@mail.gmail.com> <1E9C4941-6442-4C2C-834D-B1D8D60AAC58@piuha.net> <20150715040748.GC1862@cisco.com> <DB039D15-5BD3-4AF5-BD18-79B76AE02CE8@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=r6E9OD325830166800; tid=r6E9OD3258301668ka; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=6:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: t6F8ODHo030941
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/93attendees/uvDVdLIdau3N9l9SE--rcUmMqeA>
Cc: joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com>, chelliot@pobox.com, Arkko Jari <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Rolf Winter <rolf.winter@hs-augsburg.de>, 93attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting
X-BeenThere: 93attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 93 attendees that have opted in on this list. " <93attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/93attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:93attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:24:30 -0000

Hi,

I did ask the question offsets, and the answer was yes that multicast is included.

Tim

> On 15 Jul 2015, at 05:07, Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
> Rolfs web page explain almost nothing more than his email. I wouldn't
> know any actual broacast packet of interest except for ARP. I am
> pretty sure he means L2/L3 multicast. Having him say just "rfc919 / broadcast"
> makes me a bit nervuous about how well the other bits are thought out.
> 
> As soon as IETF gives access for Rolf to any reasonable protected packets,
> i would assume IETF is at least partially indemnifying Rolfs org from
> legal responsibilities and takes on legal responsibilities itself.
> 
> It would be good to understand what the IETF is really responsible for.
> I would fear that to be on the safe side, IETF should indemnify itself
> against the attendees by having them sign "something". I am sure
> that "something" needs to be better than "rfc919 / broadcast" unless he
> really only wants to analyze ARP patterns.
> 
> Didn't IETF have security folks running around for decades telling us
> to not be insecure because they will be tap'ing our unprotected WiFi
> traffic and post our passwords ? Whatever happened of those experiments
> (sorry, can't remember) ?
> 
> Logically its hilarious discussing legalese when Rolf would only tap 
> what amounts to publically accessible packets, eg: on no- or obvious-password
> encrypted WiFI accessible in public areas like Hotel lobbies. Of course i
> am sure with digital laws being what they are, there is going to be difference
> in him publishing a paper about those packets vs. posting a paper
> about him observing/counting IETF participants in the public hotel
> lobby and oh, their observable legal drug consumption patterns. 
> 
> I am actually interested in what the heck the technical details are.
> Depending on what protocols are of interest, the different ways of how
> multicast traffic is constrained (IGMP snooping) or L2 unicast converted 
> (vendor specific) makes a lot of difference to what can be observed where.
> 
> If he can show some really useful stats he would create, i am all for giving
> him all the access needed as long as we can make sure the IETF indemnifies
> itself well enough so that it does not have to spend money later on some stupid
> lawsuit with some disgruntled ITEF participant. But then again, i am using
> a VPN tunnel for all my traffic anyhow. 
> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless
> 
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:29:28PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> 
>>> Rolf contacted me a while ago and I had him contact Jari for approval of
>>> this "experiment". Jari has approved it.
>> 
>> Right. I think it is a useful experiment and I find the privacy safeguards adequate.
>> And indeed, the main purpose of passing this kind of experiments via the
>> IETF chair is that I try to catch issues; in this case I reviewed the suggested
>> safeguards and suggested some changes, and felt that the result was adequate.
>> 
>> It is possible that there are legal or other standards that would specify in
>> detail what we can and can not do. I am obviously not a lawyer either.
>> I don?t mind passing this to someone who understands laws about
>> human subject research or privacy, of course.
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 93attendees mailing list
>> 93attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---
> Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 93attendees mailing list
> 93attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees