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

Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> Tue, 13 October 2020 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
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 96A7E3A111D for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netorgft5189650.onmicrosoft.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 ub9E3Jd3qEHD for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GBR01-LO2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr100044.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.10.44]) (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 E78093A111C for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=UwHAx1hv3f9S9U7VDv61pENsLJRpe3tO8BkZHbrc05p8IScPRQAWvcmulpgigzpiVRQRzLpo5zphJeSz0Crouumx+EaIfxmeuPWU29dQD5P+JIwVt1ntULTefzxNkqszARtRTwjXcMBmzZ1BULGCgVCdisMQnaNKtUGr4MhVGc4OLLq9J2w5nmqPeT6TolyX3bPTSeISWBqo0675+HYgJZQ/WUVs/v4+BTSa+NIHlrqxCFcIchbe457jDjP0pCs8s55etFVt6gGAjM4TkOBV5tlEX2A9QSUCAmxVdPdcH6gIhi5IeGNDk57fcNHCQ7Qq4HEfj86SezF8q6xSq7UXdw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FUFGGKJFfDIPWlDUBXNHT/1QwYpw/y+Uoy7+9k1I3YA=; b=hW1aup9yWHJe+Fr/mUr5lVoHy5JNaWxGRPeFBmo6QbVOiXPIwu024EpzQPa6gdE9VTJv0xOGupyf78gyoQ7GtUYlkuIy6VoJYvxLvcp/6qE9S/8lrauBWV96O9fSJ1VfU4Lts0RDg5xQli8voJehWJeMibOof4yM+hcKrvYXqifMlOz4qxpS1UzP7xTH8v9NqBuMrEzfekW3MaApphweuiqF6Pvx/dxVflvzg9k6L4LTFZi1NLnACli1iARD9irJnlOkcDSyAYglS7tFq2uKmpIQf1JW3U16rp50fOnW7f/2CtdpMoKvd0TnzDGaH6iN9SmHFvkiDpKQ/y9OshuOaw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=419.consulting; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=419.consulting; dkim=pass header.d=419.consulting; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=NETORGFT5189650.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-NETORGFT5189650-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FUFGGKJFfDIPWlDUBXNHT/1QwYpw/y+Uoy7+9k1I3YA=; b=VLQH8Ulvtyceg1CBioHS98pVmNRALgI8NF4dQQ0/dAhuD8XQ+1RpccwUIKdMSitN35XRZJ2xE8CryyxGDz4OWRGWrTqH+FlfU9dK5E523pEgmzso85ubI+uiM0iW/6ZnxaJ2+uBRM4W4vsOcqtYcagqugeV+aZsANe0Gv4CmmvA=
Received: from LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:71::15) by LNXP265MB1035.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:7b::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3455.22; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:33:57 +0000
Received: from LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::199b:a430:6264:9bf6]) by LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::199b:a430:6264:9bf6%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3455.030; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:33:57 +0000
From: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
CC: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?
Thread-Index: AQHWoMn9j99I/MmCyUqbSc1JabcsyamUdupwgAALGQCAAPrOAIAACAoAgAAEyoCAAGnvAIAABc7w
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:33:57 +0000
Message-ID: <LO2P265MB0573F23F5C23ABD3933E49FDC2040@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <8fa06d77-e73b-aa15-683d-937e8841566f@gmail.com> <975E28FE326C22E8CD32DCC8@PSB> <5021a377-e9ca-1580-c2f0-3351b9f5fe04@huitema.net> <LO2P265MB05736C784B36942C7ECF71ECC2070@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <e80b6f1e-3949-b2ee-6e61-a2f3dfce9b0c@cs.tcd.ie> <586DC363-B5F8-4727-8734-815F3E17F345@gmail.com> <c5b37390-d463-fa35-215b-569698098d6a@cs.tcd.ie> <65CD5A4A-E7AD-4051-90A6-31AD536AB0AD@gmail.com> <e29dc18a-fd5d-ca0d-90a0-4ec840678054@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e29dc18a-fd5d-ca0d-90a0-4ec840678054@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=419.consulting;
x-originating-ip: [81.141.77.90]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d7a657a4-6c3c-4b07-dbf3-08d86fb74f7b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: LNXP265MB1035:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <LNXP265MB103549F99E3BC63500EBF6A3C2040@LNXP265MB1035.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: N4CeZuXRt7bRuUFy9+9hqxDTWsavC52ewotYWG6UZhWDXOwpmr8kZmLeAq+2cQT8S4N7U/j1AB0TxsNXrtAl86s/sEXZNLimirbR8mvO4S4GiD1E8H8lmd8jtDjBm2WPkgXI0Po5hJr+j/s8UUFZ8UFqF4FLGsb8ZvYQIlfHEPztzUWWkhlXvJeDwF1215K1LwPtkl83ZISMR0XUmOlWW+caN0kUgqh5qLZchF9AXj4EawHehAktZwT9Xk3lhazGerRYZBHsS5tMlWXEz/4ru4RVhg1TVmw2gsB+RNCc6jOO6eIsoQIUFQD63Pqn7OtsUI5xzZcIqZYt57/QuXT7R9GrwJZGHkG4Y5TziI+tvhC0NePSTbBQl+dK5ttAg2jh
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(376002)(346002)(39830400003)(396003)(366004)(136003)(64756008)(66476007)(52536014)(66446008)(54906003)(66946007)(53546011)(110136005)(6506007)(2906002)(478600001)(316002)(4326008)(66556008)(71200400001)(83380400001)(76116006)(55016002)(26005)(66574015)(86362001)(186003)(33656002)(9686003)(44832011)(8676002)(8936002)(5660300002)(7696005)(46492008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: 419.consulting
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d7a657a4-6c3c-4b07-dbf3-08d86fb74f7b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Oct 2020 20:33:57.5321 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9c2ced3e-7522-4755-87dc-f983abc66ec3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Fuk8divQuKURSv1wxVEPxsgV07ZLilCmOGiAhs14ag3U5LUTJgv+2uslKKLGoCjpO+4tjnrfJ4a+XLbRgfr6qWHqDp8FwBG9JsTJQ3Xgp18=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LNXP265MB1035
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/_diHeMbwvNiCfNMGKbAMd6Wc9c0>
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 20:34:02 -0000

On 13-Oct-20 20:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote: 

> We all agree, I think, that many bad things have been done using the Internet. How 
> many of those were done using cryptography, and how many bad things have been 
> *prevented* by cryptography are both objectively unknowable. Therefore, we 
> simply don't know the balance between good and evil here.

I think one of the challenges here is that there are no easy answers - if there were then this particular issue would not keep coming up.  We have a conflict between preventing harm by "bad actors" on the one hand and protecting privacy on the other.  

In my view this is not a technical problem, but is instead a case of determining which of two sets of conflicting requirements should be prioritised.  RFC 8890 suggests that, in such circumstances, we should try to minimize negative impact whilst also noting that when a decision improves the Internet for end users in one jurisdiction, but at the cost of potential harm to others elsewhere, that is not a good trade-off.  Based on the arguments made that initiated this discussion, we could conclude that the approach taken by the IETF to date appears to have harmed at least some users.  

The RFC also encourages stakeholder engagement.  We have a clear message here from one group of stakeholders that harm is occurring and that changes are needed.  It would seem reasonable to take steps to understand their case in more detail rather than just dismissing it as wrong, too difficult, badly defined or ill thought out (to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Brian has in fact done any of those things!).  

Therefore, rather than trying to debate the topic and solve it here, surely the most appropriate next step would be to seek discussion with the affected stakeholders, and possibly others to ensure a balanced view has been gained.  


Andrew