Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B46C13307E; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 3wMj8jHdNApZ; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (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 DE27D133188; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id t69so3292386wmt.2; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dXZyZ36QaRYhdahSMJy4jpIXOA9ZG3ojYDkpaFrtwUU=; b=oM7bLuXpdl9azf1qA4PhHZoNhnEkx31yAL3RJhng1PYG80ksH2FTK542ETrhgy1EZq FMUES4UpaeCwnuQvC/qFcqkZBhE1TVAVz2EkxNPOQjPKz3FQ9UElNtroHqoVguPgaMsS T+Gh+aj18eVu4e5D1I1OIkXuedTdX+MTSVgsgnKf1UW3dLVgz2gJgCIvyx2LmvtjEFOK 5wWgHUJQ5XQlyrXFRHg9xzi6hzhEHHxvy4a7piEAiWds5fKHpDnm2cXf30jGN2u9wwAO naz4bXaY/hmQXnRKE5IobHvwMnpi9nvJIb4JJKWa1/qHCo+fjFzbjuo0YtbuVzkx3WlL FqCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dXZyZ36QaRYhdahSMJy4jpIXOA9ZG3ojYDkpaFrtwUU=; b=oPqNRiBT4Rrok7qYVrqWsU+FQswCDRIVYcb1KKPGYkQwS0BA48o2x2+WWwLcgUgmp+ Z6DBdbJSpeR5q3KUors75gzj14Nyy+lw8WjZfSyHRlLQ09ixLyxpPHNwdMnOaywHJe/H /mSY6fqR48/7yMcHYpPy8Pq0YoQcvV54ZFSxzpgz4WWlNEMbBgSRLizSQynGJi8KsjWF 9iUfTeYcYvruk46jVnzkRRlp4TZaChVDnEEo3mSmkZHWorGEaFxc+AJnQuimL4XfD7dx nbUJlKmLkx7P9hgbH5admPpXm3gCPDYe2OL7bsf3g9VeKutplWOcotJOa3gMeOcuGLQD EQ2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVEkQqSm6pn9tSWPICdKRcPzJkaXXxCJXUM2V/IwBWYzhBRlLmX 2wh1sxHdzhByq5i5Cbm4EFk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDZGXhj+w770NtvLOrjjnpt44RV7DH06YG7ZEGhyNUeWJxDwB58vJAxKbZGAwSD0ixdQ/lTKg==
X-Received: by 10.80.219.66 with SMTP id b2mr21422928edl.256.1507715786437; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.150.4.1] (41-114-103-145.static.glaslokaal.nl. [145.103.114.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c25sm12105038edb.28.2017.10.11.02.56.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.26.0.170902
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:56:24 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
CC: "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <4766C4E6-396B-482F-84C6-8F1FFC24D8B4@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
References: <150670160872.14128.2758037992338326085.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171007163002.11c897a0@elandnews.com> <CAG-CQxpnHKtov+pj6YFL0wxnO3YX7mbLUA9uHUkVQbHqE3A1rQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171008102541.11499408@elandnews.com> <CAG-CQxpEb8Lcjy0M5445K4Ob+nQW15WeEooggcxpb=hToB4HZw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171008112206.1100fa88@elandnews.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A87E81@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <CALx6S342Zq15nvoxWxsAbeW=mb==QKcpOnbmEVmc_i-oEwBNRw@mail.gmail.com> <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EAA8500@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <FE455389-F6DF-44FE-85A1-BCC15CC0833E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FE455389-F6DF-44FE-85A1-BCC15CC0833E@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/CxavZAUhx_sgDVwVmmZui_KcUvM>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:56:30 -0000

Hi,

I share all the concerns expressed, these have to be taken very seriously and properly addressed, I expect authors and proponents to do so rather soon!
I also support Alvaro’s view on future evolution and further fine-tuning of the charter and deliverables within a new WG.   

Cheers,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 08:56
To: "ietf@ietf.org"; <ietf@ietf.org>;
Cc: "ideas@ietf.org"; <ideas@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

    [Apologies for not chiming in before. [*]]
    
    I’ve been reading this thread and discussing with others in the IAB/IESG.  Thank you for all the comments and opinions!
    
    The concerns about privacy/anonymity and the potential results (tracking, censorship, etc.) are clear.  It is a serious topic and I wouldn’t have expected less.  I can also see that clarifications about the intention or assurances about what the (proposed) WG should produce/focus on haven’t been enough to reduce the criticism of both the charter and the existing (individual) work.
    
    At this point in the process, and without trying to run the WG or rewrite the documents on this thread, all I can offer is charter text.  My expectation is for the support documents (i.e. the individual drafts that have been written so far) to be discussed and consensus reached on them – vs assuming that they are a foregone conclusion.  I think that the number of use cases require that formal discussion anyway.  Whatever the result of the chartering effort is, I hope that interested people will join the mailing list and contribute with the same enthusiasm.  To me, the widening of the audience has been as important as the discussion itself.
    
    Right after I send this e-mail I will be opening the ballot [1] for this week’s IESG Telechat discussion of this (proposed) WG.  I will be balloting “Yes” because I think that the discussion could be taken further in the context of a WG (hopefully with additional security/privacy expertise).  I know that the charter text is not perfect, and realize that I may be in the rough anyway.
    
    Thanks!
    
    Alvaro.
    
    
    [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ideas/ballot/   
    
    [*] I’m in the process of changing jobs, took a couple of (I would strongly argue, well-deserved) days off in between, e-mail went missing, changed e-mail systems 3 times… <sigh>   Definitely not the best timing. :-(