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

Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> Wed, 14 October 2020 11:27 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 08C8F3A07C3 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 04:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Y341ncKnG9-F for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 04:27:50 -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 4294E3A0736 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 04:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DGUdBcs6b9bxjcyoEB7NEM7b432y6hx7Gs1zntGorp75h1n/DS+qBixFDpP0hVxdpC3IqlBA5wJtBszAnAEPpVsAslu3vxvbs2846eBMUjgyQWZYjkyQqPVp7V6Segt8wPA8AUz20VE2JH27Bnb298EBnbJymHqHGH0Lr0GZh6dHvlMvmfqFWNqZPD5QuacYUXltdAYd4LmHxC3v5LNMXdMyhRRlioGW2/BApkMhTW1e/47gMH0UDCKK/NNghUcM6Ovepc8eZljsMvqD9eYTc/G97eBn+o7LPrdwdJQiQ49Hs1rUHhcPySWXxlTNybRnbAqD1JcMHO4Mipq38aFuWQ==
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=OKsAerzieuPUT0tvazWxRqETULePPr+0joGm35HaBX4=; b=I7WZOE4AvTNijpF9xisomlITngO03fvpdsu+bCxXiJmdV/XxsNJ6PLAsrrF3w4MRzR4Hz8WYpcmd2rjfeBatS/kMGsL1WTxHmzIgc0ObErS03n5/0BBDZC8qFlGnGkb4b+QD2MltENnBXCAowZBK3cDX3mtUiyof9/UFi8z/iSTx0HJ+BY9CdGtcBzx8Hoj9mwgSALysWItFffQxYmEUpwqKZTlLkeflNhYFkpIw28b/pbKVOyiJkARLQN7644HbsNACm8QPRSIHw0c9pCZQIHh9UxmV7v57i93dYXtLwPD0z9gyINiuQG5VjZ7vcXPVMQaKSbm3BXYRH0pM1fGdJQ==
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=OKsAerzieuPUT0tvazWxRqETULePPr+0joGm35HaBX4=; b=GLa7O0y5vPw1YrhcuYHt/sRlsE/3uslnPjTyshF5W+tED72iDnuQpgdUgupO1EU+HjbuiURYfAEPfBAfjh+WB8uIFqWn9Olw5f7eKxUSaJUEehDUD9clWtXs70C3+kTUp3WB6E5I8duPtJu8DCkVKuVuiY5TpIIz7puiRbMA/+E=
Received: from LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:71::15) by LO3P265MB1785.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:f5::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3477.21; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:27:47 +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 15.20.3455.032; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:27:47 +0000
From: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?
Thread-Index: AQHWoMn9j99I/MmCyUqbSc1JabcsyamUdupwgAALGQCAAPrOAIAACAoAgAAEyoCAAGnvAIAABc7wgABGCwCAAKFVQIAAETOAgAAAyOCAAALYAIAAAXuw
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:27:47 +0000
Message-ID: <LO2P265MB05735CC3E8E5E634E6892BF9C2050@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> <LO2P265MB0573F23F5C23ABD3933E49FDC2040@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <d5921a18-1cd4-5eea-ff96-70090680b54b@huitema.net> <LO2P265MB05732E22C376062F808746E3C2050@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <d4c9ea96-fca0-51f1-2bd2-b25e1b942455@cs.tcd.ie> <LO2P265MB05732E2A4892E483BABBB6D7C2050@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <f48733b0-a692-6149-0ace-59bf3d294866@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <f48733b0-a692-6149-0ace-59bf3d294866@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cs.tcd.ie; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cs.tcd.ie; 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: ebb1b720-77e9-4a9b-1082-08d870342d93
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: LO3P265MB1785:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <LO3P265MB178529824A642947D7A43900C2050@LO3P265MB1785.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: e1+8ER13JIfvo6ye7cJtu2ODau3S4/dq2jHUX2HTh3qf48yljPVn+h0l/o/8MOtCSRd4rzxdCQe5LbIUD1JnWrMPcz5wtaDo6EscfTXAjsBJ0EdKC+ODTb+2CNVVvqrtylgahNzV42TQa+E+wqG3pA6sykjUkluELfAhw2U7na1+AAbWLRfRazQGmQIkmKOJi5FBj3OcQaLSI20bQF06CewOFNfuPpng59QspUGmdCqJeKM5b66ZxzYh/IRNcuajqoYe4iFe8YEnH9exciA77xdi8hwJcrinQ5IbpWv17PA9e9SdTwrrD8GAUuJJ2wYk48Ge5h3lgr+CCn8I5TgXledj7GhSgkE1BHKDjp+tBXUwT8/PJO6ssxSeE/fhn+Sv
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:(366004)(346002)(8676002)(7696005)(26005)(6506007)(66446008)(66476007)(76116006)(66946007)(64756008)(66556008)(53546011)(508600001)(9686003)(4326008)(44832011)(186003)(55016002)(2906002)(83380400001)(33656002)(86362001)(8936002)(296002)(52536014)(6916009)(5660300002)(71200400001)(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: ebb1b720-77e9-4a9b-1082-08d870342d93
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Oct 2020 11:27:47.7308 (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: akOs4kR4gN6goUjqcull46DzBdIpCZmzQTO+YuJwX0DdjNBC2tyjgGtyLR1T8D4oNCty1Bh9NfNiJq0gaOgP3lsJJBrXQFNefr7rr14Kca8=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LO3P265MB1785
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/XL1vRBOZZbKbpRr39-ns5PE2TXI>
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:27:52 -0000

My argument does not state that privacy is the only benefit of crypto.  For clarity, it does state that some in the IETF have "previously determined both that end-to-end encryption is the correct technical solution to protect privacy and that privacy should be prioritised over at least some other considerations such as the significant harms caused by certain behaviours that have benefited from that encryption".  I hope this clears up any confusion.  

I think it would be more beneficial to focus our energies on addressing the substantive points.  

Andrew 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> 
Sent: 14 October 2020 12:17
To: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?



On 14/10/2020 12:11, Andrew Campling wrote:
> You are correct, I agree that I have not provided an exhaustive list 
> of the uses of encryption, nor indeed have I included an exhaustive 
> list of the harms that could be associated with some of those uses.
> This does not detract from the rest of the post and I look forward to 
> seeing views on the substantive points made.

I might have gotten confused by the quoting in that post but I do believe it does undermine your argument which seemed to be assuming that the only justification for confidentiality was privacy.

Given we agree that is not the case, ISTM any attempt to setup a <e2e-crypto==privacy> vs. <whatever> argument fails because <e2e-crypto!=privacy>.

S.

> 
> Andrew
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell 
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sent: 14 October 2020 12:04 To: Andrew 
> Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> Cc:
> architecture-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot
> RFC1984 and RFC2804?
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 14/10/2020 11:41, Andrew Campling wrote:
>> I agree that the IETF is best at solving technical problems and note 
>> that it has previously determined both that end-to-end encryption is 
>> the correct technical solution to protect privacy and that privacy 
>> should be prioritised over at least some other considerations such as 
>> the significant harms caused by certain behaviours that have 
>> benefited from that encryption
> The above is not accurate. Encryption mechanisms provide different 
> services (confid, auth) that are of use for more than just user 
> privacy. For example, I'd guess we'd all be unhappy if various bug 
> trackers leaked plaintext. There are many other examples of 
> confidentiality being required for security and not only privacy.
> 
> S.
>