Re: [Ideas] IDEAS Chartering Result

Robert Moskowitz <> Sun, 15 October 2017 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749C21326DF for <>; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LN_p_qsQ1k3o for <>; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F2F11320DC for <>; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEE262217; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 21:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id iFdts9bJo85U; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 21:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D16E8621F8; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 21:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Moskowitz <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>,
Cc: Deborah Brungard <>
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 21:46:36 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B0385AF006BEBD339B52396E"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] IDEAS Chartering Result
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:46:53 -0000

And IP addressing is really orthogonal to IDEAS.  IDEAS only exposes the 
deficiencies we have allowed to be deployed.


On 10/14/2017 09:43 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> In a sense the funding issue is kind of interesting.  I remember past 
> efforts funded by principally one company...
> In my case, I am being funded to do something I really wanted to do 
> for some years, but could not get backing to do it.  So actually it is 
> the other way around.
> In large measure the organization does not understand privacy issues 
> by what they say are challenges.  Basically we really need to rethink 
> use of IP addresses.  Actually IPv6 makes this possible with multiple 
> addressing to a single host really working.  In theory.
> Also it is not the case that the MAC address of a mobile device is for 
> traffic for that device.  More and more, mobile devices are acting as 
> hotspots. So there is already a n-1 mapping starting. We leverage that 
> for ID/Loc.  Different IP address == Loc per host to start making 
> associations between one communication use with another.
> Please schedule a BOF so we can get the community to really think 
> about what it will take for privacy in ANY workgroup in the IETF. 
> Don't blame IDEAS for the IETF's failure in this area.
> I will work with others for a set of presentations while we work on 
> the charter.
> Bob
> On 10/12/2017 03:02 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>> Dear IDEAS list:
>> First of all, I want to thank everyone who has participated in the 
>> discussion of the proposed charter over the last couple of weeks, as 
>> well as everyone who has invested time in the development of related 
>> documents.
>> Today, in our Formal Telechat, the IESG reached consensus to not 
>> approve the proposed charter [1].  The discussion during the External 
>> Review period had a significant effect on the decision.  To be clear, 
>> this decision doesn’t close the door to any IDEAS-related work in the 
>> future.
>> I want to encourage everyone to continue the work, even if 
>> informally.  Part of the discussion during today’s call was about the 
>> possibility of holding a BoF at IETF 100 to focus on the privacy 
>> aspects.  I advocated against it because I think that the time is too 
>> short to organize and achieve a fruitful discussion.  Instead, I 
>> suggest side meetings and informal conversations to move the common 
>> understanding forward.
>> WG Chartering doesn’t have to be done during the “IETF cycle”, the 
>> IESG doesn’t have to wait until right before IETF 101 to consider a 
>> revised charter.  The process can be run at any point and a WG can 
>> have interim (virtual or physical) meetings any time.  Please keep 
>> that in mind as you move forward.
>> One of the issues mentioned during the External Review (and pointed 
>> out to me in private, by a couple of different people) had to do with 
>> the affiliation of most of the people advocating for the WG and 
>> offering clarifications.  Due to my recent change in affiliation [2], 
>> that group now includes me.  While I have only worked at me new 
>> employer for 4 days (including today!), I decided to not continue as 
>> sponsoring AD for this effort.  I don’t doubt anyone’s integrity or 
>> intention, but I think it is important to eliminate any appearance of 
>> being partial – the effectiveness of the IESG depends on the 
>> impartiality of its members!
>> Deborah Brungard, who, among other things, is the Responsible AD for 
>> the lisp WG, has volunteered to be the point of contact for the 
>> IESG.  As this effort moves forward and if a new charter wants to be 
>> put out for IESG consideration, please get in touch with Deborah.
>> Thanks!
>> Alvaro.
>> [1]
>> [2] 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ideas mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Ideas mailing list