Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-trammell-wire-image-04> (The Wire Image of a Network Protocol)

John C Klensin <> Sat, 15 September 2018 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96720126F72; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sxf_iXK42RW7; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B23C912008A; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1g0z1F-000Hhv-Ek; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:05:05 -0400
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:04:58 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Randy Bush <>, Stephen Farrell <>
cc: IAB <>,, IETF-Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-trammell-wire-image-04> (The Wire Image of a Network Protocol)
Message-ID: <B6B4A91F91E91993931707C6@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
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
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 01:05:16 -0000

--On Friday, September 14, 2018 15:55 -0700 Randy Bush
<>; wrote:

> i am less comfortable with hiding this critical discussion off
> in some obscure mailing list.  we already have enough problems
> with closed iab discussions.


> but making clear that strong
> encryption is here to stay and that is a good thing is
> principle.

Yes, I certainly hope so.   However, I also think we need to be
aware that, while I hope history doesn't repeat itself in this
case, the historical trend ("historical" = centuries, not
Internet time) has been that, if whatever passes for strong
encryption at the time starts becoming sufficiently intrusive,
governments have often responded by banning encryption entirely
and trying to enforce those bans.   That potentially provides a
new way to fragment the Internet with a boundary between those
who use strong encryption and those who are put at considerable
risk by trying to do so.   I'm still prepared to believe that
strong encryption is a good thing in principle, but we should
also all be careful what we wish for.