Re: [hrpc] Protocol/Architecture consideration of Attribution & right of legal remedy (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-03.txt)

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Wed, 12 June 2019 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBBC1200A1 for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outbound.mailhop.org
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 XxeIZ0lpvYNR for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound1b.ore.mailhop.org (outbound1b.ore.mailhop.org [54.200.247.200]) (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 E04ED1201E8 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1560362737; cv=none; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; b=c1FPY8w66rzxZ0fZsSlUOqqj2DVR1g/bIqn0ngTtBhGE+xDJoLY8DsXV7wQC+6DiSxUsWZmmJ84Im FUcZnHRJd5dP9HE9mMPfVFONWrjgBGZ5aK+XTOvRkaf7dzuXOvpJZ5u3P9/I/yFAR0fEup5heZtd/6 2IIqfcIOoJ5sivKcNTXd3StlgO1Tatw+gve2L3nQovLLq3ysEm1gSUn7CSBaQCVHlvPOVtDKYHzYYW iXYk/n4vkT2krBxYXn/KgPYgavKc1RVQQJz8i5X9rWg6xyCEFffVst3xAUoOKnMA8R/MGZA++FTi1G ypXN/fOGL8v6u0RA4dD/MLndQ3xxSeA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:content-type: message-id:from:dkim-signature:from; bh=uSY/TJg9MwcGrV9w1XOaho/7i0I8l1JvTsXmQ/n/O7o=; b=R3TayIG9Gu9QDPuyiZuMk920y9kNqQb4ElNc3Ni7nmCl47ZiN5QNbFBMFbkhA18Nz6k+ONbHroJpN DyckHv3i4+BCjQsVmoR/cscdS6xKP2DT7M2ciR8ZSTSZuCJIGJKYyiUmexOu0czEV5u7wKgsmdYuBf 6Y8ZcfYp/wGDgOZS27RgdweoN8sZdNRDcDqiNH37ZupLTYxCUpdrMGnwv7yBipQlYP3OgXGBv4MXsC AXuBXmJ36eVPV3b81l9CebUAp8w6WgerbQtnnsnjsLV9O301JvTErMgRU9ubIfRIlYIdMSNRGGxSqR DlBG9a0CuWMxHdRxWM6/Os5rARQMeXA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; outbound3.ore.mailhop.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=istaff.org smtp.remote-ip=96.241.220.148; dmarc=none header.from=istaff.org; arc=none header.oldest-pass=0;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=dkim-high; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:content-type: message-id:from:from; bh=uSY/TJg9MwcGrV9w1XOaho/7i0I8l1JvTsXmQ/n/O7o=; b=sceqWCf8BYUHCYjUBSQ7ok2zoXBdMparLaahXjLjmZbHNJjOl0qDfWFzt9KrEI1ilyj8ZhgI5+ra3 JBmzr13dU0AUZugEnNRT039b9vVL856exlr5jD+/WDdJZLKYD99z8smw3KUEpmklYaCYnyWENWfW+G /+3GQ7MJyzY7CMNiObUSaLSO4q5WWvXns6oWjFTp927sXqYlnGshecdOgevut1yhRnTUugrJfODSea 0OpnM/61f8dRcdWLYNu0s443TycCy3ontJEistCr9yNs5/L7Yvsc7gHs3MX83ShW2Rtd9pLxzWsIxk D1tyJ09VG9HRMRfceECgWDj1kq074kA==
X-MHO-RoutePath: amN1cnJhbg==
X-MHO-User: ab45d319-8d3c-11e9-ba65-db796b3fb7af
X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information
X-Originating-IP: 96.241.220.148
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
Received: from geode.istaff.org (unknown [96.241.220.148]) by outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (Halon) with ESMTPA id ab45d319-8d3c-11e9-ba65-db796b3fb7af; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:05:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by geode.istaff.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116B03BE9177; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:05:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at istaff.org
Received: from geode.istaff.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (geode.istaff.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5smPUl70CBq; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from static-219-167.meetings.nanog.org (unknown [199.187.219.167]) by geode.istaff.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 383313BE915C; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Message-Id: <992B79C0-5B80-4710-B8CF-D87BC80FA2C3@istaff.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F3F02F33-FE1E-4AAB-9F3F-A2A85BF4E0CE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:05:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvA5BdbSJNkGADChmtmjHzww0Q5RcvXwwOC4rO7YT7DiVw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Amelia Andersdotter <amelia@article19.org>, hrpc@irtf.org, Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
References: <155989623088.20255.12181969220178709616@ietfa.amsl.com> <C550D5BC-8062-4C58-8CEC-B82B2798C1D9@istaff.org> <71b7350e-cb75-aba1-1717-50d1069531b1@nielstenoever.net> <B8D9823F-2D42-42DF-AE8A-6E67532DA4D1@istaff.org> <d66b60ab-3aaa-d45d-3f47-d2c00f89119d@article19.org> <1ECD44BA-4BB1-47FD-87B5-E35A3B6DDCB6@istaff.org> <CAN1qJvA5BdbSJNkGADChmtmjHzww0Q5RcvXwwOC4rO7YT7DiVw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/vcUS2wjM8H8nLKFyoK3PwHFhq6A>
Subject: Re: [hrpc] Protocol/Architecture consideration of Attribution & right of legal remedy (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-03.txt)
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:05:41 -0000

On 12 Jun 2019, at 1:48 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Frankly, John, what you are suggesting is outrageous. 
> 
> You don't have to always attribute the wrongdoing to a "person" or even a "location" to be able to establish jurisdiction and have access to a legal remedy and even preserve security. What you are suggesting will do more harm than good for human rights. 

Farzaneh - 

I’m not certain if you read what I wrote, but I certainly did _not_ advocate that protocols/architectures have to always attribute to a person or location – the proposed text provides questions for protocol designers to consider in their design activities, not mandates or architectural norms to be followed. 

If you are correct in that there are cases where attribution isn’t necessary to provide access to a legal remedy, then it’s simply a matter of documenting (for a given protocol/architecture under assessment) why that is the case, since that’s one of the first questions asked in the proposed text: 

	"What, if any, mechanisms within the protocol or architecture are provided for a recipient of communications to obtain redress from communication which causes harm?  “

If redress is readily available, then it is indeed true that attribution is a non-issue.  It might be good to document an example of such a protocol, since most protocols recourse from “bad behavior” is disconnection, and that’s obviously not the same as legal remedy/redress. 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers