[dns-privacy] Correcting some misstatements made in the session
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sat, 23 November 2019 07:57 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2701208FD for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:57:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.244, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 RgmXSH3sZ0uq for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f46.google.com (mail-ot1-f46.google.com [209.85.210.46]) (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 93863120900 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f46.google.com with SMTP id f10so8305139oto.3 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:57:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YYfpy3F3VOsJxSpR4O30ricd1Zm/eAX4+wEHi8t3CQ4=; b=duJ8+mWT/OtRsTGCdEMeZvNUtWFL61ut0ZHcescR787BEwDlIehVoPt4wlGnnvrDP/ XlZHxC9V4OJyw5WN6OfrJdfPXL+KaFkJN50fe3Y2ZQJvmaz0+JBJdBayizWrbl7BYAsb kXwsq4Ynlus2EO9m1IZJ/KmHJBN4BPa94/oLLEZPtYupfCUGPcE1PSPJFju1/B+8xdY9 mUe+k4i6NNNLn0Ut3ONtbEuSLGbTIzaW10Lm7sy7nN9rs3IVa35TGGOCWuJB2ouSo1ij BNBmv3CusAThhgzAyFG8sKkAOGjb+wbhbNsJi9cJm9jOTKnowipGYmMDtS4Tkr5xOg0F 69Gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUFa0Pd3XGe4dTZK2vcA9wP4Y1+JVPiVNj/fpuK2D2NQDdZh4qo 9UuFst5AUB0IdTGGeTQiPRr1CULsDE/DbvZsDswCxtGcY50=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyR/VENNfqmIN6qUAlXBfo/GYF491QYQj2YUeSEnK9dTuXALnQ2h8ATfyEKqnDQAFT9TZhN0TOWozEMQ9ouH6U=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7052:: with SMTP id x18mr1038484otj.37.1574495853630; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:57:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:57:21 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwigC++WCnDZP+3PQObGrULqKnF3gjR+ETC5VkEs343Opw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000e7eac0597fee2f2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/Avmutre9RvHSIVYhBn9wgWmCKRE>
Subject: [dns-privacy] Correcting some misstatements made in the session
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 07:57:36 -0000
Some of the attacks made on one of the speakers seemed overly aggressive to me. And as sometimes happens, the people making the statements were simply misinformed. The use of machine readable legal terms is not just possible, it is the way most international trade takes place. When I first joined VeriSign, I worked in the practices group where one of our projects was developing that technology in a collaboration with the ICC. That project was probably premature, back in 1997 we had barely started SSL. But INCOTERMS are the basis for most international trade. https://www.export.gov/article?id=Incoterms-Overview Secondly, we keep having people make blanket statements about what the user can understand. If we are going to have people make claims based on 'academic studies' I think it behoves them to state which studies they mean. Because when we recently had this discussion on the Mozilla list, we were once again shown the same decade old study based on 18 participants split into three groups of six that found that users don't understand security signal without training. Cherry picking results to find the result you want is not science. As with the EFF claim that there were over 1000 CAs, this is a zombie prejudice. If people are going to slap down speakers with statements of absolute certitude and ridicule them, better get it right. In this case the statements made were wrong. I think an apology is warranted to the speaker. We are not going to get the best results if people are ridiculed for making statements that are actually correct.
- [dns-privacy] Correcting some misstatements made … Phillip Hallam-Baker