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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 21 September 2013 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 B130021F9F99 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.07
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.07 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 rFRnQLQ3+IPM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D0E2021F9DD5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 81610 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2013 01:29:09 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 21 Sep 2013 01:29:09 -0000
Message-ID: <523CF77A.2060700@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:33:46 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]
References: <CE61D529.11007%Josh.Howlett@Ja.net> <523C2E7E.8070507@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FF3F2C7C-5A75-4E2F-9D4B-31C78FDCD035@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <FF3F2C7C-5A75-4E2F-9D4B-31C78FDCD035@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 01:34:35 -0000

Mark Nottingham wrote:

>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> The proper protection is to avoid cloud services and have our
>> own end systems fully under control of ourselves.
>>
>> Toward the goal, IETF should shutdown all the cloud related
>> WGs and never develop any protocol to promote cloud service.
> 
> I draw the opposite conclusion, actually. With good standards,
> we can encourage a larger number of services to exist,
> raising the cost of monitoring them all.

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.

> 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.

> Good standards allow that to happen.

I'm afraid you want to increase monitoring cost.

						Masataka Ohta