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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 22 September 2013 21:07 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 308D411E8155 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 14:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 btI05kwot28n for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 14:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124F111E8147 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 14:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1VNqsL-000N2X-Cx; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:07:29 -0400
X-Vipre-Scanned: 03C8E589002C3103C8E6D6-TDI
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:07:28 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]
Message-ID: <7648694D7F0C31D8F0F01114@[192.168.1.128]>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1309221255450.17028@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <523BD51A.2080101@gmail.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA153DB96C@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <523E76BC.4040009@dcrocker.net> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1309221255450.17028@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF discussion list <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: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:07:50 -0000

--On Sunday, 22 September, 2013 12:59 -0400 Paul Wouters
<paul@cypherpunks.ca> wrote:

>> Except that essentially all services other than email have
>> gained popularity  in centralized form, including IM.
> 
> Note that decentralising makes you less anonymous. If everyone
> runs
> their own jabber service with TLS and OTR, you are less
> anonymous than
> today. So "decentralising" is not a solution on its own for
> meta-data
> tracking.

Perhaps more generally, there may be tradeoffs between content
privacy and tracking who is talking with whom.  For the former,
decentralization is valuable because efforts to compromise the
endpoints and messages stored on them without leaving tracks is
harder.  In particular, if I run some node in a highly
distributed environment, a court order demanding content or logs
(or a call "asking" that I "cooperate") in disclosing data,
keys, etc., would be very difficult to keep secret from me (even
if it prevented me from telling my friends/ peers).   And a lot
more of those court orders or note would be required than in a
centralized environment.  On the other hand, as you point out,
traffic monitoring is lots easier if IP addresses identify
people or even small clusters of people.

The other interesting aspect of the problem is that, if we want
to get serious about distributing applications down to very
small scale, part of that effort is, I believe necessarily,
getting serious about IPv6 and avoidance of highly centralized
conversion and address translation functions.

    john