IETF88 Technical Plenary hums

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 B3B1021E80C3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:42:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, 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 UD5S14abztK1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:42:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4E111E8140 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:42:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8368AF24091; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:42:13 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eonSW1crHtb5; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:41:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp-b42b.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b42b.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBA4F2408E; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:41:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: IETF88 Technical Plenary hums
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1A50FE6-2A1E-47C9-A440-3A0655B9E188@isoc.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:41:41 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <50B4387E-8E32-4E73-91F8-44268C5F5865@vigilsec.com>
References: <D1A50FE6-2A1E-47C9-A440-3A0655B9E188@isoc.org>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:42:37 -0000

At the end of the IETF88 Technical Plenary, there were five hums.  This note is to provide the text of the hums and the community response.  The people in the room were asked to hum for YES if they agreed with the statement and hum for NO if they disagreed with the statement.

1.  The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive surveillance attack?

    Overwhelming YES.  Silence for NO.

2. Pervasive surveillance is an attack, and the IETF needs to adjust our threat model to consider it when developing standards track specifications.

    Very strong YES.  Silence for NO.

3. The IETF should include encryption, even outside authentication, where practical.

    Strong YES.  Silence for NO.

4.  The IETF should strive for end-to-end encryption, even when there are middleboxes in the path.

    Mixed response, but more YES than NO.

5.  Many insecure protocols are used in the Internet today, and the IETF should create a secure alternative for the popular ones.

    Mostly YES, but some NO.

Russ