Re: Hum theatre

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 07 November 2013 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FE011E81ED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:39:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.785
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.995, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bffu56p4Rf2t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AADAC11E8209 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id rA78cg1R018890; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:38:42 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 493e_31c5_01bab480_4788_11e3_b4b7_001e6722eec2; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:38:41 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DF9BF545; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:38:41 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <527B517B.5010207@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:38:19 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Hum theatre
References: <527AF986.4090504@dcrocker.net> <A4E8A2D6-6F01-48DF-84D9-84CD53FCE76A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A4E8A2D6-6F01-48DF-84D9-84CD53FCE76A@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<dcrocker@bbiw.net>" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:39:33 -0000

Hello Fred,

On 2013/11/07 12:43, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

> First, as the questions were asked this morning and as you suggested they might have been reworded, the implication of a "yes" is that we will go back to each protocol we have deployed or in design and "do something" to make it more private, including protection against surveillance. I'm not sure we're likely to, for example, change RFC 791 to make it less available to surveillance, or for that matter RFC 2640.

I just looked up these two numbers. RFC 791 gives me IP, which makes 
sense. RFC 2640 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2640) gives me 
"Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol", which doesn't make 
much sense to me. Are you saying that non-ASCII filenames need different 
protection from ASCII filenames?

Regards,   Martin.