Re: Hum theatre

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 07 November 2013 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 771E421E8100 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:53:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 dSEFIDcJ0xGv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F9021E80FB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:52:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1819; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383814376; x=1385023976; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Euzd7LnKV2Pu8P9rfS0d7NnTr3EyP7TwgLM82nrwG0Y=; b=OmU3+SCCUYs31Nznqo76tLz/ArOfhSFN33UgACa1cX8Bf84xFFezUixP Romvoysml0w8FcbHwHfZemiROe/GEIj4MUHV+IxDEbn2+Dkecn8egVqYO A2RatunfrPU1/pimuaOvwg6A8Ax77lprcEN+gYcyPdnbq+ikahq+k+ec6 Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYFAJFTe1KtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZDoJ5OFO/DoEkFnSCJQEBAQMBeQULAgEIGC4yJQIECgQFDodtBg29VY9ZB4MggRADkC6BMIYugS+QW4JnP4Iq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,650,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="278827413"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2013 08:52:56 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA78qudo027766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:52:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.122]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 02:52:55 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: Hum theatre
Thread-Topic: Hum theatre
Thread-Index: AQHO22Bm278AERXjx0WkVd8HlPN725oZhOmAgABSVoCAAAQTAA==
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:52:54 +0000
Message-ID: <62C7ED97-195F-438E-B687-F54BF411D6A9@cisco.com>
References: <527AF986.4090504@dcrocker.net> <A4E8A2D6-6F01-48DF-84D9-84CD53FCE76A@cisco.com> <527B517B.5010207@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <527B517B.5010207@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.75.25]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_71229174-41F8-454D-B4BE-DA6D0618704D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 08:53:01 -0000

On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:38 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 wrote:

> 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?

Oops, sorry, 2460...

> Regards,   Martin.
> 

----------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. 
   - Marshall McLuhan