Re: The IETF environment

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sat, 26 April 2014 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28DF1A0639 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Td1VubbvKEVp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22f.google.com (mail-la0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E581A0268 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id pn19so3894096lab.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
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=OqEfAYxqkVWid6hAGbT4luphs27ERpf37OWPQXqJ66E=; b=tEQEWyywWv1WlAVWEz2hm5VWeoOooqk6GeD/LXB5V/+NxbyELP6+LBOIXGdeivhl8j cK3+4juL1bRqOY3xqss0pGKQERXiXDovIUl1gdbwAXBHvicDPlQXYo97sXJ+d1c/oYXm 0+hwFYkrCeb1aH6NUybgE5M2ZjmsdOA9X8BirGajuPp4ghyfshNEfr08m9pFgFUmaceV 4j7fQMhrQwuV+WmsR9pL8f4xklKLlD/vl0T/NyJwF72AjKG1TWtWBnOFMtS7+r3LP17n vQhlOXcHpuHRJepTAX/2lGoj8KS4U6dL9m3NWL/8tHwejuU3N5OMoODsyfxWc4gXME7c tH9g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.42.144 with SMTP id o16mr11035924lal.9.1398533332430; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.234.229 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwZr=wVX6eD+yGVOaxkSy5fJbuAErTshOG+2BywUvkDfAA@mail.gmail.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5356F23F.40909@dougbarton.us> <01P71CGX4VD8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <5359D543.5070900@dcrocker.net> <01P721HY5XZO000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:28:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgVjd7V08OHkV90QeJDwkEdA7S+yvwenO4K2hrDxV-icg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The IETF environment
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tScZNQcx-POf7H0lt8huE6QidZY
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 26 Apr 2014 17:29:02 -0000

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 4/25/2014 7:56 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>>
>> An obvious counterexample is what recently happened in perpass and
>> the various works it has started. Regardless of what anyone thinks of
>> perpass or its outcome, a fair characterization is that it was an
>> IETF repsonse to the message delivered by Snoden et al.
>
>
> Yup.  It's a singular example, but that's the point.  It's not what the IETF
> (usually) does.
>
> It's fine that it's being attempted and it might (or might not) prove
> useful.  But there is no pattern of the IETF doing such a thing.

There is really no precedent for discovering that a rogue agency was
conspiring to sabotage efforts to provide Internet security.

It is not just the IETF that has ben responding in unusual ways.

For the past thirty years we have been building a technology trap that
civilization now depends on. And anyone who looks into the structure
of that technology trap will realize that all the critical
infrastructure is now linked to the net in ways that can create
enormous amounts of fear and panic albeit with little risk of
catastrophic consequences.

Fear and panic are themselves capable of creating serious
consequences, consider that the response to 9/11 was to start not just
one but two wars.

And now we find that the government agency charged with COMSEC
assurance was actually committing resources to subverting COMSEC
efforts. In many cases efforts that were funded by other parts of the
US government.

This is really not a usual situation at all.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/