IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 21 September 2013 05:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 493C511E80FD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nRJfjmPp81lM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB8511E80FC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (unknown [118.209.201.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7003A22E1F4; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:48:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <523CF77A.2060700@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:48:22 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <66400EFC-C60C-49E1-B145-81B279FB4FC5@mnot.net>
References: <CE61D529.11007%Josh.Howlett@Ja.net> <523C2E7E.8070507@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FF3F2C7C-5A75-4E2F-9D4B-31C78FDCD035@mnot.net> <523CF77A.2060700@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: 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: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 05:48:38 -0000

On 21/09/2013, at 11:33 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Cost for monitoring should be large?
> 
> Then, protocols not have any authoritative specification and
> should never be standardized and there should be no central
> authority to manage different versions of the protocols.

From a PRISM viewpoint, the cost of parsing different formats, understanding different wire protocols, etc. is trivial. The real cost is negotiating with / bullying each provider into giving access. Especially if it's not hosted or doing business in a country you control.

>> I should be able to choose my own data sync server, whether
>> it's one I run, or one run by my paranoid friend, or by a
>> local company, or a US company that's in bed with the NSA.
> 
> The only secure way is to run your own.

That's a very simplistic definition of "secure."


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status