IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EXT] Re: @EXT: RE: United Nations report on Internet standards

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 A32243A233E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 C_DYG_N7x3NX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1CA73A2343 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jJJ9f-000O2M-2r; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:50:19 -0400
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:50:13 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: @EXT: RE: United Nations report on Internet standards
Message-ID: <B520AED72BE916A10FDFDF5F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <372986510.4614.1585641654495@appsuite-dev-gw1.open-xchange.com>
References: <68ab4f9e057d49b0972f97a907f45ced@elvas.europol.eu.int> <4668b6f7-cf7e-b577-3ece-30d1bdf3a4bc@network-heretics.com> <713270061.4157.1585575906743@appsuite-dev-gw1.open-xchange.com> <71ddd912-9067-a29f-e33f-473b1608eb8d@network-heretics.com> <372986510.4614.1585641654495@appsuite-dev-gw1.open-xchange.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3EVMNPAce5VjDtX5EYhcbYTU4VQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:50:28 -0000


--On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:00 +0200 Vittorio Bertola
<vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>> Il 30/03/2020 16:07 Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
>> ha scritto:
>> 
>>  
>> On 3/30/20 9:45 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> 
>> > For example, privileging encryption over security is a
>> > policy choice.
>> 
>> That's a false dichotomy.   Security is not enhanced, but
>> weakened, by  giving governments back-door access, and there
>> is plenty of technical  justification for that.
> 
> That is your opinion, and incidentally it is also mine, but it
> is not the opinion of a whole lot of non-technical
> professionals and experts in the law enforcement field, and
> even of some technical experts, otherwise "eTLS" would not
> exist and would not have been approved as a technical standard
> at another well respected standards organization. Those people
> are not incompetent, those people prefer a different tradeoff
> between multiple policy objectives.
> 
> In any case, my discourse was much more general, so apologies
> for mentioning that specific case, it was just meant as an
> example, not to reopen a discussion from the past.

I think it is another discussion for another time, but wonder
how the two of you feel about privileging encryption over
privacy and/or network robustness and resiliency in the cases in
which those are real tradeoffs.

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email