IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Marnew] endpoint consent

Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> Thu, 24 September 2015 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: marnew@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marnew@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5581A8F4D for <marnew@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 5P5oquS1n-fA for <marnew@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A874A1A8F40 for <marnew@iab.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbni9 with SMTP id ni9so46643274igb.0 for <marnew@iab.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:30:49 -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=xY5HmFEn2Y/vBVRHm9+sqPSYefgLTAW+EDy43qJ+k0U=; b=o2Fyyp/NeMvDpHrFB3qvo9n0nd80Oc66KB8/kQDjRDtjQGkEVzoRaqHx4FiNzbzD1+ bM9L78+Kw2ZcNEPPjM8GWwYKjfWEzoMLQHgxTAf2pkJq7bsI+6frkPRTmnciWt/PHRS1 5I41Ldwiy2HN2/J/DGh1IRcJRcF1tj/dPvMk0PZAQYLvgfE/8GUZ+fX5fJGcNlyF7Yyz K/ofIuaipCxPF/kg9nrcyZmbAtdv1cJaD6wzE9zn3HjDDhNyYF+h3K/4pp1C4H1UJK6j gvd9uy8BvFIJQZeooHGOn5ox6OcL49wHeuUILCk7BHLRi5JNYEpzM7JJ9YLiMvcLjjGN EUcQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.79.164 with SMTP id k4mr27260060igx.16.1443094248878; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.111.133 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2B9B48179856DC4FA00C93C79EB7E64A0E991DDD@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
References: <1991284A-864D-45C0-A016-A64C8FA5F029@gmail.com> <09EC7D4E-0245-4019-9D20-F95CF2362845@piuha.net> <2B9B48179856DC4FA00C93C79EB7E64A0E991DDD@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:30:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD62q9X0o3hUp_48OQCohkxh-+g-0YN+HJNCtZJX2huwa96ujw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0129478414f85005207c906c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/marnew/BF51i8NHQOBBuWmh2lQdxsB2idw>
Cc: "marnew@iab.org" <marnew@iab.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [Marnew] endpoint consent
X-BeenThere: marnew@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World <marnew.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/marnew>, <mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/marnew/>
List-Post: <mailto:marnew@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/marnew>, <mailto:marnew-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:30:51 -0000

Thinking about this a bit more last night, let me suggest that in this case
trust is transitive as long as it is explicit.  Meaning, only one endpoint
needs to be aware of the third actor but he needs to know what he is giving
up in security through that trust.  For example, it is pretty clear that a
content provider know what they are doing when they allow a CDN to use a
cert in their name (and that is also likely backed up with legal agreements
on misuse) but an end user probably doesn't understand the security
implications of installing a root cert issued by their ISP.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Salvatore Loreto <
salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:

> To answer Aaron question if we go on this path then BOTH  endpoints MUST
> consent IMHO
> more or less in line with the Telefonica and ALU proposals at the Sigcomm
> workshop on middleboxes
>
> However having explored this topic in the past
>  I agree with what Jari says below
>
> And I am not so sure is the right way to go!
> It would be much better if we can work on a collaborative solution between
> CP and/or CDN and the Mobile Network
>
> BR
> Salvatore
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marnew [mailto:marnew-bounces@iab.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: den 24 september 2015 00:58
> To: Aaron Falk
> Cc: marnew@iab.org
> Subject: Re: [Marnew] endpoint consent
>
> One challenge is of course that it is already difficult for the users (or
> even us experts) to understand all the exact things that are going on, so
> providing a useful control for the users even on bandwidth may not be easy.
> Let alone more complex settings.
>
> The other issue is that we should be careful about setting the ambition
> level.
> Fine-grained quality of service treatment has not been successful in the
> Internet. What's the right ambition level, being able to specify detailed
> bandwidth consumption rules? Or the ability to differentiate interactive
> from the non-interactive within one user? The more coarse grained you make
> this, the more likely it is that it can be used by applications and
> understood by users.
>
> Jari
>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email