Re: [Ideas] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: (with BLOCK)

Alissa Cooper <> Wed, 11 October 2017 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD3C132D17; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=oL3G1dUk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=eKuL3PUe
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iSMDaVt6iVpA; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC7CD1286C7; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B090F20D56; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:58:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:58:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=DQNg5G0pW7YSvBrnYDbCVolY9VIk/nXlEcxuhBg3qWQ=; b=oL3G1dUk D4t/EE0Q4lBiNqXmV5HdS9FASAc2q3gQ8EEL89/DJsAfGx86VIjqEJFjPXMP3ujC x4mFO79bqUJQpEUZ0oBCiJ0NwqDsBEko+0pj5tJFE+Fz9LaHbeZwyqN/kYrVDtwL fvMyUkctG5W1N3ngLJHsLZ0HxpazX197Ywi55jm5AneFAQzhl2lqYd6R7BH+aNfU 2qqbMp2E0/Ugr5ON5yYdlBw2GH5x9cj2a16u4laKzOUBNdqMQEBpXqoVltA9vXkR ywIIQGXMl+kOJeNxlvLnOJrMdNiaHiK+ClxEdWZiaSpEFY4l+Ial+YFGW0eNEPe3 9/mYJ3a4iz8Rbw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=DQNg5G0pW7YSvBrnYDbCVolY9VIk/ nXlEcxuhBg3qWQ=; b=eKuL3PUe0HPqNKi0xgogscfIuyKq5JPeCXpQFBdg8OejS lFXZE5yzFdpWoXSap3ngVpPNjwXeUzDNdclwpsebrkOnfIyO7ILYVarPkGp9jvYd ALZxmxg+ijiwI9EzOq++8VSJSd1CqZvnNo76M5N2+ak5bFro6rxVMxynFv6rJP5q Z74ByJ06nYHiOT+IpZs1TWkM11kBOBkNpYOd9t2EGhVwM6BfVav+W6Fb9euH//dv jYdstU1KgNRu0BKOp8TZtdpJvhP5COFIy4kQEQ6woEkN5gAl0sIpIBl0tsQYuZcy Rxwr34tH90mFC4DBll1H/LAYBdknQ2l0NMtRXEbMw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:5oXeWW_q_-B3NAddMj9Qek3YIVxTQTkXckId6iPDFKnVNkuRrqTC7g>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6715A247AD; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:58:13 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_92B8B867-B651-433F-B643-0A7FC122B466"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:58:12 -0400
Cc: IESG <>,,,
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Sam Sun <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: (with BLOCK)
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:58:18 -0000

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Sam Sun <> wrote:
> My recall from the last BoF meeting is that we got quite a large number of hums on the issues reflected in the current charter. I believe there are sufficient motivations here. 
I don’t see this clearly reflected in the minutes or on the list discussion. From the minutes it sounds like there was general interest in the work, but also acknowledgment that folks with deployments are not engaged, and many folks present who hadn’t read the problem statement or felt that the problem was not well defined. From the list discussion, at least for the identity management piece I see only the proponents defending the proposal (but happy to be corrected — I’m looking at this for the first time this week so may have missed some messages).
> The disputes on privacy protection and discoverability in the mailing list only shows the interests from the community looking for a better solution. Having disputes about different approaches, or even question whether or not there’s any feasible solution, is exactly why we need to form a WG to work on this, IMHO.
This seems backwards to me. We don’t typically form working groups in order to determine whether there is work to be done and whether there is any way that work can be designed in alignment with our BCPs and principles about things like privacy. That is what the chartering process is for.

> Sam
> On 10/11/17 10:53 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>> charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: Block
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> <>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I do not think this group is ready to be chartered at this time given the
>> significant objections from the community.
>> There seem to be two key problems with the work as proposed:
>> (1) The work is insufficiently motivated. The claims about the need for the
>> mapping system and the identity management system envisioned here do not appear
>> to be backed up by those who have developed and deployed ID/LOC separation
>> protocols. Nor do there seem to be compelling arguments that the framework that
>> this proposed WG would produce would be the motivator for further interoperable
>> deployments.
>> (2) The work proposed here seems as if it would have a substantial intrinsic
>> impact on user privacy if widely deployed. In cases like these, I don't believe
>> it's sufficient to say that the WG will analyze the situation and propose
>> mitigations; the work proposal itself needs to explain how the design of the
>> infrastructure envisioned is going to mitigate what seem like obvious attacks
>> on privacy that the proposed designs open up.
>> I think further discussions of this work (in private, on the list, at a bar in
>> Singapore, or at a potential future BoF) would need to resolve both of the
>> above issues in order to address concerns raised by the community.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ideas mailing list
>> <>
>> <>