Re: [IAB] IETF88 Technical Plenary hums

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 06 November 2013 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2496521E80BE for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:07:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZyL2hluprUz1 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137FE21E816F for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:06:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2065; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383775608; x=1384985208; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TmiR7rTryOTRaUvvoTjIiG4wAUnLqcskZKDief19tfM=; b=bwLUCkCpXUaocf8JgYlhVtd4qISmSAaTTe+/qz9GmqELLlV5cumg8jrB r7chwouV0WrS6zihBoisaZ/vkJgmzIoaMuTW4+gyQFSNGMvOlOLQ+fbiE dPQInXTfKgLb+KTugVCGGT8cHgPx5VRCihowUBgdjOQ+LWazIEOTuTwD2 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,647,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="281633937"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2013 22:06:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA6M6ieT020668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 22:06:45 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:06:44 -0800
From: Eliot Lear <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <>, IETF <>
Subject: Re: [IAB] IETF88 Technical Plenary hums
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: IAB <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:07:12 -0000


I am glad that we all want to do something about this problem.  I also
appreciate that the questions you asked were intended to be
aspirational.  Having said this, I must voice two concerns about how
these hums are taken.  First, they were formed very quickly and in
particular we did not explore at the plenary the last three questions in
any detail.  Had we done so, I would have raised my other concern, which
is that we have at least one very relevant group that has expressed
concern that opportunistic encryption could harm efforts to get
authenticated TLS well deployed.  That may be the right answer in those
circumstances – or not.  The conclusion of that discussion to be as
informed as is possible, especially given its magnitude.

It was enough for us to say that we as a community will take steps to
address pervasive surveillance.  Clearly we are taking steps to address
pervasive surveillance.


On 11/6/13 12:41 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> At the end of the IETF88 Technical Plenary, there were five hums.  This note is to provide the text of the hums and the community response.  The people in the room were asked to hum for YES if they agreed with the statement and hum for NO if they disagreed with the statement.
> 1.  The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive surveillance attack?
>     Overwhelming YES.  Silence for NO.
> 2. Pervasive surveillance is an attack, and the IETF needs to adjust our threat model to consider it when developing standards track specifications.
>     Very strong YES.  Silence for NO.
> 3. The IETF should include encryption, even outside authentication, where practical.
>     Strong YES.  Silence for NO.
> 4.  The IETF should strive for end-to-end encryption, even when there are middleboxes in the path.
>     Mixed response, but more YES than NO.
> 5.  Many insecure protocols are used in the Internet today, and the IETF should create a secure alternative for the popular ones.
>     Mostly YES, but some NO.
> Russ