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

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Tue, 13 October 2020 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
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 E59243A0F31 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.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 UxmzZbMGwnEu for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 51ED63A0F0C for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3CB6A275; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:01:55 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1602586915; bh=W2/Qs/oCBLB9dR0xdDO3J5BSyhGw94NqMnOTfILKK40=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=2h+zrlM1aKp78QbO7CC0/bLNwARe7Z4CTO2fLUFVtdzElBqXff2wyZuIsRZSzHSxD XglGimnMiBd969GGd0a97V3o1gBn0WZTPW2naYpOPoy6ZCH8N19RiiOsjlwsAQsvBa /Tmo0LLRiQUlbvtwFbJHqZhlANJ62dQOJaM6Yz7awnK6Elf6x++rXfsvRJtxgCEuNG qLfil9TI+jDH1HSHpGNB3CQdkSyKGNpWeig3wDucZf+nH5+G2baK9KoQXUyk7PUw4i o514/sMH7xl318Uis7t+6epl7yyaN0vfBWKqovJ7NhA/ccU+kpKMro9S9PQT9Qacio Cuj+69dW2JfqQ==
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFD923C0157; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:01:54 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:01:54 +0200 (CEST)
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1399594128.20035.1602586914886@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <47EA7F173A4205E1D1DC87A7@PSB>
References: <8fa06d77-e73b-aa15-683d-937e8841566f@gmail.com> <975E28FE326C22E8CD32DCC8@PSB> <5021a377-e9ca-1580-c2f0-3351b9f5fe04@huitema.net> <47EA7F173A4205E1D1DC87A7@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.4-Rev10
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/SLnaYUUVnE7I-6VIwL0EeGwKx0s>
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: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:01:59 -0000


> Il 12/10/2020 21:27 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> ha scritto:
> 
> FWIW, I have noticed that there is one big difference between my
> running my own servers for mail, storage, etc., and passing
> those off to a large cloud or virtual service providers.  If
> some governmental entity comes to that provider with sufficient
> legal documents or threats (of the sort you mention or of the
> use of force) and says "give me his files and records and don't
> tell him we asked", they presumably get them and I presumably
> don't find out.   If they come to me with the same request
> (putting aside whether I would be able to destroy everything and
> would have the nerve to do that), they presumably get the files
> but there is zero chance of keeping me from finding out about
> the request. 

There is also a second big difference: the government that has the right / the opportunity to access your data at a cloud provider may not be the same government that is able to come after you directly. Whether this is good or bad for you depends on the specific set of governments and on how much you like them.

> Sometimes that is important, sometimes not, but,
> where it is important, distributed architectures and protocols
> and operational arrangements that encourage highly distributed
> services are prerequisite.

On the other hand, the more your data are spread out, the more likely it is that someone somewhere has an opportunity to intercept them. Of course it depends whether you are spreading out entire copies or just subsets, whether each subset is enough to give away meaningful information about you, and so on. But something that strikes me is that the IETF community often seems to think that more distribution of data equates to more privacy, while the basic assumption of almost any privacy law is the exact opposite.


> Il 12/10/2020 23:51 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> ha scritto:
> 
> I'll note in passing that rfc7258 defines PM in a way
> that I at least consider does encompass some of the
> mechanisms of surveillance capitalism, e.g. devices
> "calling home" with telemetry that relates to protocol
> artefacts in ways that can enable broad surveillance.
> Could be we could improve on that though.

Even if the IETF fully equated commercial surveillance to governmental surveillance, it would still be hard for many parties to accept the idea that the two things are the same or are similarly bad, or are always bad no matter what. Again, this is an assessment that depends on the specific situation and also, unfortunately, on one's political views of society, but I think that the IETF should develop a more nuanced approach to the topic.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy