Re: [E-impact] Initial draft of the IAB e-impact workshop report

[Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>]

In a previous email I provided a summary of the keynote speech that 
professor Patrick McDaniel (University of Wisconsin-Madison) provided in 
the 2022 ACM SIGSAC (Conference on Computer and Communications Security 
CCS ’22, November 7–11, 2022, Los Angeles, CA) about "*Sustainability is 
a Security Problem*".

He summarized the problem as follows:

    1- Every solution to sustainability (regulations, tax/subsidy, and
    market) require that information be trustworthy.
    2. Economics (and history) shows that many will cheat (e.g., misreport).
    3. Thus, all sustainability measures and systems must be modeled as
    systems under threat.

He Summarized the challenge before us is to provide trustworthy 
sustainability data:

    • Making data collection verifiable (accurate, timely, and immutable)
    • Making data collection and use privacy preserving and fair
    • Supporting publicly accessible information on sustainability
    • Provide optimal strategies for sustainability infrastructure
    deployment.

He noted that no matter what area of security we are working on, it is 
important for sustainability. These areas include:

  * /Secure machine learning./
  * /Network security/
  * /Hardware Security/
  * /Software Security/
  * /Usable Security/
  * /Formal Methods./

You can access the keynote slides here: ccs22 (patrickmcdaniel.org) 
<https://patrickmcdaniel.org/pubs/ccs22.pdf>

Hesham

in 2/5/2023 12:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 01-Feb-23 23:50, Vesna Manojlovic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to support this:
>>
>> On 01/02/2023 11:32, Michael Welzl wrote:
>>
>>> Section 5, Security Considerations:
>>
>>> Also, this section reminded me that there was a bit of a discussion
>>> around a possible “Sustainability Considerations” (or was it
>>> “Environmental Considerations”? I don’t remember) section for RFCs.
>>> Without taking a side in this discussion, I think this has been
>>> discussed long enough to warrant a mention somewhere in this document.
>>
>> At least as a possible milestone in the future:
>>
>> Adding “Environmental Considerations” section for RFCs.
>
> I understand why this might seem like a solution, but (as with the 
> infamous
> "Security issues are not discussed in this memo") it's only a solution
> if there is *first* a document rather like RFC 3552: "Guidelines for
> analysing and minimizing the sustainability impact of a protocol", or
> something like that.
>
> If there is to be some IETF activity, I think that developing such 
> guidelines
> would be the first step.
>
>    Brian