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

Alvaro Retana <> Tue, 10 October 2017 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043EA1351C9; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2rYNTWoMs_9K; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A52AA135074; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k31so17150207qta.6; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VeKJWwehnTYsHzRy5Y/4ZlLFMs21K8O3ZO7hv+dF0xY=; b=PlLgF6uD1428baeyj93yGNT78gt2ObJdqRxz568mVX2TuIc8LkGiOOTCYS0nqst4u7 E071QcoRK4NkVKwexj0c1FJDr2+wqv4AenN4NYMowpPtbY5IRk3C29lkaOCeqK5q0ws6 se5H0XQtEkuxsNRO7/vAj0qv3I/itv8LRPojU/7+/wKQt4gq3nG9d5qnDUPjN1hKqjgZ EzX1uVowVHOGLBScCGXccoBMGGtBwpomiqAwBH53bKt6WxCrnvTjkKJbbEGgANTrPFA+ j1nQh8jLMZbbq56WN8VuN4zq12W8NrvxhV21IbjzCEWizfShdKYx8LZqu76Jjsa+/d7o PRTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=VeKJWwehnTYsHzRy5Y/4ZlLFMs21K8O3ZO7hv+dF0xY=; b=LLJPMz8a2G+61iINl4+8738r1P0sYYNvqCCAEnU48x7RmabRl5io8Y1xhiZWmbQIue U+axRhWxZ2biGvaRth5MjDEsSualNE2fK5500no9oTwANyAhCUC6M9zun0BfX3JEryf2 8HXRnR7nkwuBvqqw0NdKf2WOs/FGRgpPutrJTHRqJGP2gU4SuH19AX1l/E6AKmEguC6w s0Krq2DKPYt0nHG/xFr1W92FKjXp4Z7E/dyXIQaI0VqKPiHcpAVBVVe7MtV+P6Z08V8+ oZVIiBupjNjbRXACvyyVN/dDPFT2MsdjnN9hJiUtKBrU+9XMnDX/wkkbv5TfFile+ds0 bGLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWC81U/2u1YdZMgYruLtJOP5LW63fq+rH2C84cnU7dvQ8FN+0td osXYpA/8lAYh7ipplzuoOSO+Ug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBH/gidfQYy/QWi+ydbOeHL4hbWn6Y/vjctynSEXFV/b4ro4+HPGEClB0YkuKw5LeYCNhnb+A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h128mr2366291yba.267.1507650172653; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s65sm4758742ywd.15.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.26.0.170902
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:42:50 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <>
To: "" <>
CC: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
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: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:55:51 -0000

[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.




[*] 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. :-(