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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 11 October 2017 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 9368013202D; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 s7sGZDbGfCvF; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8315912EC30; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F639BE56; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:14:18 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yV9FxJCCnkV; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:14:16 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DCD3BE49; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:14:16 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1507706056; bh=duLTBA3VIQUalRh4uxHXkjm1AXQGVz+pfNK0xUp5Qvk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kNKTXbV2z42tSVBKFFo9a/6+CfCEDm0KP4AqdQyt0U1ULZV3pj7oQo0m47OmCyWVr /R6d8ORT0UIyWxWgFVGQxWH8xq7/vkOY0jCNYN09xedFu1/akVk86rqTsvVi/dQ8AU BmyD4buYJdLbMH1I9DdWye0eoyhlHrBAH1CzseBw=
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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> <62958257-9F18-4176-B29F-0D0D4B31E14B@netapp.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <9dfaba08-ed86-2c88-10e7-e57b817d3c6f@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:14:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <62958257-9F18-4176-B29F-0D0D4B31E14B@netapp.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3vlwWUmvPfuq5rsURK97a6lJ25ONwUBUv"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/hxU1o0g_NSiUXI49wmoBQWutKoU>
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 07:14:22 -0000

I agree with Lars' statement below and don't understand the
logic of the "yes" ballot here. That said, I see there are
now also two "block" ballots [1] so it looks like the IESG
collectively are doing the right thing.

S.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ideas/ballot/

On 11/10/17 08:01, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2017-10-10, at 17:42, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> not only is the charter text "not perfect", it *raises* serious security and privacy concerns.
> 
> Going forward with the current charter text is hence exactly the wrong thing to do. At the very least, the charter text requires a serious refactoring, to attempt to either address the raised concerns or to explicitly (and drastically) limit the scope of the work so that there is consensus that these issues can be worked out in a WG.
> 
> The statement to take this "further in the context of a WG (hopefully with additional security/privacy expertise)" basically asks the rest of us who have no interest in this work to spend cycles on it anyway, in order to do damage control in a WG. The reason we do consensus calls on charters is so that we *don't* need to do that for ideas that are clearly problematic and shouldn't be chartered.
> 
> Lars
>