CH and p2p [Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it]

If you want to discuss this as a generic issue, please do so
with an appropriate subject and without cross posting. Thanks.

BTW I agree that there is a generic architectural issue here
that merits discussion.

    Brian

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Ned Freed wrote:
> 
>>> Ned Freed wrote:
>>> > If I were to object to Eliot's proposal (I don't - in fact I strongly
>>> > support
>>> > it), it would be on the grounds that the IETF should be taking a long
>>> > hard look
>>> > at the issues surrounding call home in general, not just in the 
>>> special
>>> > case of
>>> > SNMP.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'll bite: what could the IETF do if it looked
>>> long and hard?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the one approach that immediately comes to mind is that the 
>> introduction
>> of a third party might provide a means of getting timely information 
>> about
>> software updates without sacrificing user privacy.
>>
>> Such a third party would act as a repository for update information 
>> provided by
>> vendors. Applications would then "call home" to one of these repositories
>> rather than directly to the vendor. Various anonymyzing tricks could be
>> employed to minimize information leakage even if the third party was
>> compromised.
> 
> 
> You mean we could invent Bitorrent? :)
> 
>         Mike, doesn't it strike others as odd
>          that ietf is completely outside of the
>          p2p bizness?
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf