IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-privacy] "Opportunistic encryption" and a need for a definition

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA0B1ADBCC for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:25:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.026 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 uTxWIE-439mn for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476781ADBC7 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:25:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=842; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384856695; x=1386066295; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LMnqzGlGR4lRKFOFuYbAwCLswR4d3W7NuR3TFR1d0+s=; b=aj2OsfkTig1CTPaXqlXhOISqBqUw8dsk/m+6DHAP/EC1FEyaqgocWg/v KJqHmHo/U+lDrafN3rl2Vv18SMnUo+YrltOlmA8RW9DxAidynNUp7nOXS S8afBv4OPRntIWbunzWybCe+9OvlJ9+XJRXB9+GqZZXVSvQzOXn/wSxUh 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFANU7i1KrRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABZgweEAbxIgR4WdIIlAQEBBCNWEAsYAgIFIQICDwIsGgYBDAEFAgEBh3ywC5IlF4Epji4HgmuBRwOYEpINgyk7
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,728,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="95608364"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2013 10:24:55 +0000
Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.204.44]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAJAOpno032185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:24:52 GMT
Message-ID: <528B3C72.10604@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:24:50 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20131119093343.GA9282@nic.fr> <528B31B4.5050005@cisco.com> <20131119094626.GA11078@nic.fr> <528B3790.2020302@cs.tcd.ie> <20131119100653.GA14012@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20131119100653.GA14012@nic.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] "Opportunistic encryption" and a need for a definition
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:25:02 -0000

So here's my pet peeve:

On 11/19/13 11:06 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:04:00AM +0000,
>  Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote 
>  a message of 66 lines which said:
>
>> When we push out another rev, we'll make that clear, specific text
>> suggestions are welcome too of course.
> My suggestion is to stop completely to talk about opportunistic
> encryption.

OE may have other very valid uses besides pervasive surveillance,
depending on its definition.  One of the problems that has beguiled home
networking people is how to establish a trust between devices in the
home.  There are similar cases for home access beyond the home, where
trust needn't be anchored by an X.509 cert but perhaps by local
attestation of some form.  Are these use cases OE or is that not OE?

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email