Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95E028C12D for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UlCasDjJHjhQ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8A728C0F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7729A4771; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:00:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id slnX5JJq08H7; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:59:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.108] (pool-96-241-163-123.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.163.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2429A473C; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:00:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4C2CE5B8.5070709@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:00:08 -0400
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks
References: <CFB08C07-DE90-47BE-ADFF-FC72162BBFA1@daedelus.com> <4C2BBD51.2060605@ietf.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20100701070804.0c26b8a0@resistor.net> <6D6E25E2-057B-4591-9288-1283036D0374@cisco.com> <4C2CB739.4030101@dcrocker.net> <700E34E1-6B18-4D6E-B0C5-DC98174C45C9@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <700E34E1-6B18-4D6E-B0C5-DC98174C45C9@bbn.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 01 Jul 2010 18:59:54 -0000

Richard:

> There's a difference, however, between ticking a box and having
> individual user-attributable credentials.  The two techniques are
> focused on different goals, generically binding users to an AUP, without
> caring who they are, versus being able to identify individual users on
> the network (with more detail than a MAC address).
> 
> The proposal here is the latter, which would seem to raise the question
> of why individual user attribution is necessary, i.e., why anonymity in
> the IETF network unacceptable -- even within the pool of IETF participants.

Anonymous access is available to anyone that cares to get a random
registration ID from the IETF registration desk or the network help
desk.  So, clearly that was not a motive.

One reason for using the registration ID was to allow people to use the
network before the checkin at the IETF registration desk.  Another
reason was fewer tasks for the people manning the IETF registration desk.

Russ