Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Sun, 11 October 2020 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0613A0985 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.113
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 ZE8jh-hxQk1a for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE54D3A097F for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xse119.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.119] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx168.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1kRkAK-000Ea9-Uk for architecture-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 00:50:10 +0200
Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C8cTB2Qn7z27p2 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.2.31] (helo=xmail09.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1kRkAI-00061G-7B for architecture-discuss@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:50:06 -0700
Received: (qmail 13420 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2020 22:50:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.139]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail09.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; 11 Oct 2020 22:50:05 -0000
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
References: <8fa06d77-e73b-aa15-683d-937e8841566f@gmail.com> <975E28FE326C22E8CD32DCC8@PSB>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH
Message-ID: <5021a377-e9ca-1580-c2f0-3351b9f5fe04@huitema.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:50:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <975E28FE326C22E8CD32DCC8@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.119
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.119/32
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.119/32@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0ZXzIHSbE2lF8iY6Od2jmSypSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDsYLBcJLyHnVrULITPs15U6ts NHuRxlWqWR9fNqLY1ai4Dcwf+CZK8NXgy3In+fX7wYGxr7LXLi3+kUZXlThoqVO05s+oip5EC/YK rMQ9+O9t+TYaqvvx766D6vBkj4PutP0Dzal8myJ8vVhoWnSKP2MRQY4sL7fGBhvCp6oW0F28pnvZ XWSe7jV34Pxn0vH1Lz/y+awqhw7CmTPsWtYsCV/oEQh3zFZ7AJOfdc5NLopVCPmS+MVojfDUugvn Zl+jhHQOLtWk4clq0P6Ltvr/5Zl+BJt+8hYKwgejR0Z9YPn97p3CKmEi95YYeXPNWMiahaC2TJpF rGrq1WX76kTmg5w7R2/M+XaT5BLifEp8KpWu41J1t4cteGI4vH6PuMQp0kaOEXLuWd+6zLg4wp8u XxPcpGyeyPXKNTABBN67jV7JvFCbAD7w3FUirQwmJIqD2OUMeHyTpNN0eXybX/w7/3ZCM0u5uBlK VwmNWN494pWaZ30sdVozPGNttYaP6Q9/2E4JvzZwv3PGBEOc6AcTtKlxiwntkD2eEKddmSkms3CG 0c1aNWBfB87rZzV2mYS3VD1XJsdUC/l4in++svwYCsuvr9eYlnrNxETbn7YZpw3ymNgFzWRkuRvd 2hsh/DKjJTkETFTHdBwnk7JDmeUy/LUbIt943D+erP5PutQA9Ss14O9uIBc4R2FHvu2iptL1GeGu 5qOj6kS5rtB5TKSzR04vidrAbzPztKfs4s5XguL2uhT3KQx41zCmSSvPnIYmS4glJP8JuWv5w7P9 xxEwk+3E7PNP9hZ2YPyDLCAHXnUsy647Mn0zwmGzAi3Zn+Ydr38cN0L29hpYqOQomv/Sn4OJCdFr QGG66XtzjgLUDW/OzgRwsx26JIrnuz41QdUugEEc+Eql4Tj+X3YkLe5buSZuZ5OAUoGBziSYFLZu u6wUZYupFCxOQUA2Zz77xVbE
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/QV3kg_6w3HkBrGw7wawcL72Ms_o>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 22:50:15 -0000

On 10/11/2020 2:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> It seems to me that we (very broadly defined) may be headed into
> a period in which:
>
> (1) We are forced into a choice between encryption and other
> technical privacy protections against attacks (borrowing the
> 7258 language) by individuals and attacks by governments
> (including law enforcement), especially governments who have
> jurisdiction over the sender, receiver, or other.  The default
> if we don't choose and make the distinction clear to others may
> be "neither".
>
> and/or 
>
> (2) We are forced into a choice between an open and global
> Internet and one that is very fragmented with security and
> privacy protective only within mutually-isolated more local
> networks.  We would have either no communication among those
> local networks or content filtering, application-level, gateways
> at politically selected boundaries.  Refusing to chose might
> result in both bad outcomes.


There may be something else. The government actions typically operate
through application providers acting as gatekeepers, as in "Facebook,
please provide me a clear-text version of these messages". If there are
just a few platforms managing a large share of the communications,
governments merely have to lean onto these platforms to obtain what they
want. And if a company is running a big communication business, it will
come to terms with local governments in order to protect that business.
If the IETF wants to protect individual freedoms, then it might want to
focus on distributed architecture for communication services.

-- Christian Huitema