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

[Sam Sun <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ideas/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOCK:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas