Re: WCIT outcome?
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 02 January 2013 16:30 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 7E2DA21F8438 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:30:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id osXgti7F6rMp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com (mail-ob0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D77221F8433 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id dn14so12919032obc.16 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:30:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=McdWUephajfZmU7PkGUJ5JTvypre4fSGohcI+dpj4AI=; b=xphqZRuPTd6leBXmUtRuf8tP0BwC/WHmL/An9TFlkV+QDvgMJk4TwIw2hKWuMvb1qQ G8o+3qyAPBKcxuNjZjDJ4+/Wx/eKVQfC6CQfHFsSVTI19dxSUCWHfdKs8chDMdJrbrZ2 19t+36Kf99hzuh5l4eXwcRISxi6uBCdmhmOmzcSZ2vt2F1hy8+Rfco4qDYC+aTsGo7CV 33RpKe37IpiZfSD8ZK/NUI22P7R3M2Qfo6TwFsD6fK548+9bYrrdUHtfEwOprizAu4yY N86Ihuo7uAPWjnN3KdawAPtTRP/dZCtem3eKz12ZL/s9jvzpJbbeBxZgCLBkERcH0p4F 14Og==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.29.193 with SMTP id m1mr25433944oeh.36.1357144207039; Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.19.43 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:30:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a06240834cd09f3ec48a7@10.0.1.3>
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjzjLc2-=4EdxwHOi21B3dOBUohYc5hhXZHL_Pk+iBBmQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net> <CAMm+LwiC0xtJU4vnGFPvAG4VKZdj7Tf3LfW0+pzwxKWTegRREw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240800cd074efd45b8@10.0.1.3> <CAMm+Lwiq+DCzXw572wKs78DG+XzYsJtwCVSPvNuVHSrT=Cr2nA@mail.gmail.com> <a06240809cd0799fee029@10.0.1.3> <6.2.5.6.2.20130102023406.0b4b7d68@resistor.net> <CAMm+LwgsgaV7L-FY4MnM2Einaapo-BdiddBU+nYzTS6DMPXzQw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240834cd09f3ec48a7@10.0.1.3>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 11:30:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwhcv9wSpzixYp8QOx0fwTwcmOEcPaR2-gw6V+ObB2UFaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff242a15e9c1f04d250c220"
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, IETF Discussion Mailing 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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:30:08 -0000
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:46 AM, John Day <jeanjour@comcast.net> wrote: > ** > Interesting as always. > > But beyond the illegitimate concerns, there are some important legitimate > ones. In particular a country like France has to be concerned that if it > gets into a trade dispute with the US that the US administration can't > force it into submission by threatening to cut off its connection to the > Internet or any other essential communication technology. > > This is not a theoretical consideration. The reason that there is no > central repository for RFID product identifiers is that the French > government decided that the proposals on the table would give the US the > ability to control the sale of French products by ordering the maintainer > of the registry not to publish them. That would effectively make it > impossible to sell them through the electronic supply chain. So they made > sure that the registry did not happen. > > > > Then the RFID folks had written a lousy standard. It is pretty easy to > design a decentralized name space methodology, such that no one can control > the whole thing. Regulating to protect stupidity interferes with Darwin. > ;-) > Which was my on-topic conclusion. If IETF wants to avoid government level politics then we have to design the technology in such a way that we eliminate or mitigate any control points. The WebPKI has been successfully deployed precisely because it has sufficient hierarchy to be scalable without establishing a single control point like the PEM proposal. I don't think we will see DNSSEC or BGPSEC being allowed to propagate unless attention is paid to the legitimate interest of states to avoid technology capture. DNSSEC does not replace the WebPKI, nor does BGPSEC. But we need all three security layers if we are going to achieve a comprehensive security solution for the Internet. Each technology has a very specific purpose: BGPSEC: Prevent/mitigate Denial of Service attacks through bogus route advertisement DNSSEC: Distribute security policy information tied to the Internet naming system WebPKI: Establish accountability of the parties at the Internet end points. At the moment we have a broken system because DNSSEC is being sold as a 'free' replacement for WebPKI which is a losing proposition as (1) the cost of deploying DNSSEC is many times the cost of buying a domain validated SSL certificate (2) the real purpose of the WebPKI is to establish accountability which requires a stronger credential than merely having bought a DNS name. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jorge Amodio
- WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Victor Ndonnang
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Stewart Bryant
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dmitry Burkov
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Noel Chiappa
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? ned+ietf
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? David Morris
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Warren Kumari
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?) ned+ietf
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? t.p.
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) John C Klensin
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) Janet P Gunn
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- RE: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Eliot Lear