IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> Sat, 07 September 2013 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@sonic.net>
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 4D35E11E80C5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 UQT-JkOzCZME for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E09D11E80D3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.21.121.131] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r878PdcF020147 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 7 Sep 2013 01:25:42 -0700
Message-ID: <522AB0C8.9060305@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 21:51:20 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA
References: <5F053C0B-4678-4680-A8BF-62FF282ADDCE@softarmor.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1309051743130.47262@hiroshima.bogus.com> <52293197.1060809@gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjdN478yyU=J7=GTpQxqtdgP8wtdEtna50X+WtA-bV3hg@mail.gmail.com> <52294BDC.4060707@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52294BDC.4060707@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:23:16 -0700
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
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: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:26:00 -0000

On 9/5/13 8:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> What we lack is not the technology, it is demand for deployment.
>
> Exactly, and that is not actionable in the IETF.

Brian,

Some years back when we saw the lack of IPv6 deployment we started with 
some IPv4-free plenary time slots - eating our own dog food. Thus I 
think we can do something even on the deployment front.

Wouldn't it make sense for us to do something similar in this space? 
That would help iron out implementation and usability issues.

Regards,
    Erik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email