Re: [Pearg] Updated Charter and meeting at IETF 103

Griffin Boyce <gboyce@cyber.harvard.edu> Tue, 09 October 2018 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <gboyce@cyber.harvard.edu>
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 B402C1293FB for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QBnIU4UpgbPx for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oz.law.harvard.edu (imap.metalab.harvard.edu [128.103.64.104]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DA7D127148 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by oz.law.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D9610743; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from oz.law.harvard.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (oz.law.harvard.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 01346-09; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from turok.law.harvard.edu (adam.law.harvard.edu [128.103.64.74]) by oz.law.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128BF1073A; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from roundcube.berkman (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by turok.law.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62CC65B; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:37:51 -0400
From: Griffin Boyce <gboyce@cyber.harvard.edu>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>, pearg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <e063b5b5-9139-f311-4472-69cc089008eb@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <9A133F31-500C-4B3B-9E17-432E87ABE204@sinodun.com> <e063b5b5-9139-f311-4472-69cc089008eb@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <5b2d01ecdba30a3ac6de8f3610f713f5@cyber.harvard.edu>
X-Sender: gboyce@cyber.harvard.edu
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2-git
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at oz.law.harvard.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/eGAGeujnvOKThTYnqOqu4XXYWZw>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Updated Charter and meeting at IETF 103
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 20:37:58 -0000

On 2018-09-26 16:27, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> "The chairs may at times appoint at their pleasure “closed” design 
> teams
> with lesser reporting requirements (though results will be open). This
> will allow for some limited discussions in which participants require
> extra privacy/confidentiality."
> 
> I think that's undesirable. I've also no idea what kind of design
> team might make sense in an RG. I don't think any other current or
> recent RG has been anything but fully open. I'd prefer that this
> not be an exception. If there is a justification for such an
> exception then I think that ought be explicit, but I don't recall
> hearing one. (It's possible this was discussed in Montreal at the
> bit of the f2f meeting I missed.)

   I agree that this is broadly undesirable.  Unless there's an obvious 
use-case for confidentiality, *and* people foresee that happening 
imminently, I think that this would be a point of contention 
longer-term.  (But full disclosure, I have missed the F2F meetings and 
this may have been covered there).

all the best,
Griffin Boyce


On 2018-09-26 16:27, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
> 
> On 19/09/18 14:18, Sara Dickinson wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Many thanks for all the feedback on the proposed Charter for the
>> group. Based on this please find an updated Charter for PEARG on the
>> wiki: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/irtf/wiki/pearg
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/irtf/wiki/pearg>
>> 
>> If you have further comments on this please make them on this list.
> 
> The charter is looking pretty good generally. One comment below and
> some nits that you could take or leave.
> 
> "The chairs may at times appoint at their pleasure “closed” design 
> teams
> with lesser reporting requirements (though results will be open). This
> will allow for some limited discussions in which participants require
> extra privacy/confidentiality."
> 
> I think that's undesirable. I've also no idea what kind of design
> team might make sense in an RG. I don't think any other current or
> recent RG has been anything but fully open. I'd prefer that this
> not be an exception. If there is a justification for such an
> exception then I think that ought be explicit, but I don't recall
> hearing one. (It's possible this was discussed in Montreal at the
> bit of the f2f meeting I missed.)
> 
> Nits:
> 
> - The IETF hasn't only suggested more encryption as a mitigation
> for PM. For example Christian Huitema has done fine work on DHCP.
> There are more examples. I think you could tweak the charter text
> in various places to not give the impression that all the IETF and
> IAB have done is "moar crypto."
> 
> - PETS and SOUPS aren't standards bodies
> 
> - "PEARG will participate" assumes PEARG is an entity whereas it'll
> be a set of participants.
> 
> If it helps I'd be fine to suggest/review specific wording changes
> as per the above, but I don't think RG charters needs to be as
> wordsmithed as IETF WG charters so I've not done that.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>> Also, we are planning to meet in Bangkok at IETF 103 and will have a
>> short review of the Charter then. We are currently putting together
>> the agenda for that meeting so if you have something you would like
>> to present then please email Shivan and I to discuss.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Sara.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>