IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pearg] [saag] Ten years after Snowden (2013 - 2023), is IETF keeping its promises?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 05 January 2023 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B85FC153CBA; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:51:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pATAayokREDG; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oo1-f44.google.com (mail-oo1-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22446C14CE31; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oo1-f44.google.com with SMTP id t15-20020a4a96cf000000b0049f7e18db0dso102658ooi.10; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:51:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=q69M7GsKhQNjk9UsGi2x8vbnwcKD0XqlMmL9rIbhpuI=; b=YfiFrOn8N4HqrRkqear7iqsExmJSWD2WmAP9hdofqihARMVpdz/XWKkA563Wz6xAyI r1RLOT2XPD5MXPg1vbRp8NYnMP/s4IJmg/Zy4JZtLG9ERuxMMacI1d8OMrm0igcyuz5u P1e8LAL1Jpnma44fe0NSCIm7g9vkblGwpWwUs4rKkXKgTza3ozb4MdtA9wNzPlIPVTRX qbzQ5hFN5yukyciAbs6GodwosG5wfxBMwJOChsy97L55H8YKUTYZNow+Al2nhl8ODwXR rvNj0Kk+j65atu5MDreiM9cGwJWraNzLBUmTuK/Ngh+qpiwRbHcs+0YOwQmhzkiVZcll l3jA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kofosj5fVj/rY0Pf+1E6E8A5DlVooaGCPKkpa1HaV5/mTUj+VmR qbi/g3mJsa9A0WIq/fDmmfWGfOzpGJBluWd9pik=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuXDQnEwdxM2ar0pFpGD8ByiCjaIGomvAX2yZJDXw7S/zjiIyWbIPP09HgrsmsfUCA02grGJr8Elv8cqBXjbYs=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:d0ca:0:b0:4b7:178d:fadf with SMTP id u10-20020a4ad0ca000000b004b7178dfadfmr2205891oor.6.1672962690219; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:51:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3c3230f3783b4ec9a8a9e3bb87cc2a8d@huawei.com> <08C49067-DB4C-41AB-A6F3-B96BDBE0A4BC@yahoo.co.uk> <CAKr6gn0tFXEV-h7LH1_Ts5iQRw_mGEi=TqS7hsyK-SqDFmmY-A@mail.gmail.com> <C09B3D18-2871-491F-B76C-630A2DCA439A@gmail.com> <EFCEFAA6-3638-4CE0-91DD-3E38FE00DF29@gmail.com> <1F71EB99-3657-4A20-8B28-2AFB743A9762@gmail.com> <1B0A222E-21E5-413E-8B2C-9C0CBCDB0773@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1B0A222E-21E5-413E-8B2C-9C0CBCDB0773@gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 18:51:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgdmHkA3PKrXb85Dt+pUg-Q5mJwY4kdktgvhB5Twwv3Ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, pearg@irtf.org, hrpc@irtf.org, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, saag <saag@ietf.org>, Antoine FRESSANCOURT <antoine.fressancourt=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df858705f18cfaf9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/6vhvOn2CfGNMYItvPUoDUx_oZ3k>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] [saag] Ten years after Snowden (2013 - 2023), is IETF keeping its promises?
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <pearg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pearg/>
List-Post: <mailto:pearg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 23:51:33 -0000

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 2:10 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I suppose that you have to question whether IP is the ideal base for
> multicast?
>
> There are many ways to provide a group communication model to applications.
>
> > Our networks are no longer mono-protocol and multicast tends to be
> domain specific.
>
> Yes, but the IP headers are the same in all of them.
>
> > Many of the original uses for multicast are now dominated by unicast
> packet duplication with edge computing making this less of a bandwidth hog,
> so it is not clear what the long term future of multicast is.
>
> Not on Wall Street. But you will say that is domain specific, and that's
> okay.
>
> Should we really be building an IP header or have semantics on an IP
> header for different domains?
>

Wall street is likely to be in a unique class here.

I don't think we need to consider multicast a failure if it doesn't end up
being used because the functionality is being provided at a higher level in
the stack.

At some point we should do a QUIC like transport for Multicast/Packet
Duplication.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email