IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Wed, 09 October 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776381200C5 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 PQnwMRxTN-jR for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x236.google.com (mail-oi1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F01120110 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x236.google.com with SMTP id k9so2031702oib.7 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fvldo+wlLOpPXJ+7iIjTJGVKvekSiJ5GGZ05Y4QbV+o=; b=TdwfZ2kjpiqyqyTk6+V9SJ5TTy/gjGM2upaucyZAMKLryghUBz2HpbROnmbwsvsOk4 T3RmLQHzlvAlvtzi3pr8xuEiDlGyzAvCDth3YOsCGI/uYbNs/KxO3Wu5uwePaKf0r0YE JuYC1ezczOIo8XGk0w5lBkuU/Xy2vWGcKohXhT/6TIbvs9yJcn1ZRKbUQRR9pmIeoO0O iX+S+kwhjlhTQJPVJkz4prx3FaSVYfOPkgWiowm57nyS6mqMZ+RQeVC0drJTdRkA1iRV aM+WL2ZtKtqDZ3uRgOcgHCDbI/ibohbG1nQhrDputNDh0BgngKqOu2m3fcPSm4V/Ltk/ 71JQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fvldo+wlLOpPXJ+7iIjTJGVKvekSiJ5GGZ05Y4QbV+o=; b=Ph5RIRRfrZSuXgLw8IsuwqbPfm+a9QSRcXiyAC3bs3supI8N3krMDVM/AiL3Z3A9Bt SOb8H3Dz9qPY0WmD2sn54afIrc+RawCM8Qo9jvgVUNmy5XquRxj4j9ex0ZsjlpAmsdbA iT5tRypQMMsVrMiEcDygJ7uikBeogDVWRO86mM7YUVKddHyyS//k83yF5hRDVIl1lXUV V5p1CrixwEeg1FE9Iq/ukJWQEgpnTSFucYZbMUakB1/Q5QOEE6QrqV+VNjwh8WHCyCMt 1C0EQuMJa0nDHHBSyRP8eObyoH1talgkBzd0mOG/Z5S2Z38doL4u/yQAK504AEvsACE4 UUdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXK5MK1mkpBA/m3ayvnqDWladQ8JET1o8gE4LQBIEVakCs7enw0 gnnwtUCUJ5Q+moqJf5sutUATt8SMCwMEnvlu8avv9A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxRtYNf/Pvxe8q97Wd89XPUFSGi1CR485pT9eKX8SJOg6+0U7udVPmA0h/i1SD0hsnuPosft3S5XOjU0g1JfGw=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:1c03:: with SMTP id c3mr2556921oic.135.1570633724916; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 08:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJLxXVuHQNfTnaeKZ_R9xtBYWfbta+A1bWcE-ZQZwd3VZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMkAFZW9mWjw92v+OR0Fa8ed+P80yc78eY07hCpsCNY6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOOq4FHVoxsyApzOc4VtTbMwZn7858-E+4kr21Z0r5wrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgR_61TNnPy=ios+hQFs_tjfYNXu-sBpbDL-HBY+QsY40A@mail.gmail.com> <B5991A18-B00D-4E77-9993-705141931844@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <B5991A18-B00D-4E77-9993-705141931844@piuha.net>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 11:08:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQ1AuLPX5UW5PhohbEJtE=1J-e0_6VxYbj8OUrsWR33FQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Cc: add@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000418ede05947ba935"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/1RS4MHUQE5WmUNhdn1Swl-LqMBc>
Subject: Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 15:08:54 -0000

Hi Jari,

Of course I agree that we should care about pervasive monitoring.  But it's
far from clear which of the deployment options is more resilient against
that threat.  The Snowden revelations indicated NSA interference at both
ISPs and cloud providers.

As for ruling out broader IETF rough consensus -- This hopefulness has been
expressed several times in this thread.  As far as I can tell, all the data
are on the other side.

--Richard


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:41 AM Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> Richard,
>
> I realise that it is easier to ignore the deployment models. And I don’t
> imagine that we’d have unanimous opinion about deployment models. Certainly
> the NSAs of the world and few others that have very specific deployments
> depend on benefits from centralised models :-) But, should that drive IETF
> opinion on an important change in Internet infrastructure.
>
> I wouldn’t entirely rule out broader IETF rough consensus on what’s good.
> We could find out, perhaps.
>
> And I think we should care about pervasive monitoring, in this and other
> topics.
>
> Jari
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email