Re: [Pearg] descriptive censorship work: draft-hall-censorship-tech

Shivan Sahib <> Wed, 24 July 2019 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340DB1209E9 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13XMs-OrgQN8 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 200801209CA for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s7so86284557iob.11 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aQQwEcED53Kw2/cpbhnctvT3Vc3xjMy9M3IFw41FdVI=; b=h9c0NwPD6miU03/z8v1Y1waUMJsX+g37iIA/sOMoLHgBZCGuWMPYfr+zACykzQiBE/ P0LntIulpCBzjUZvHZl1xIip62TS5GTdMBoC1aNnHe6tdzzB98ahgs0t/r0371Lg5yJv Yw6TpzPpIPandyP0KuPjLZBkao1lK3noScJeM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aQQwEcED53Kw2/cpbhnctvT3Vc3xjMy9M3IFw41FdVI=; b=kT+ZFwiBunvhaGukeN+Ko6khfja2o8rhc5pqjnDX03vsyqxIIQKqJn4SMj0ePQ/eUN WgfYF+4LWadSYSNWYf5Sxu8r6VtzvGIWcCLN7TEgyumidmScAjl01u8+d5BOzGDs6ZHN FzSeBbset3mIb6t37X/xPDHd7qnVXo9B1oP6aN9nKg1kZW60YyS31U35oa+/VD8r127/ /3GUHoE3w0sm/o+wVJS8FAeWv/M4DOJ5Co+2b2mZgCgAt1yFwR2GhYogLyHqbJZejxMs LmFfP34xlXugcDrf52o/skIo6mnbiYSChVAL4UbnbyUV49+6ni3mHafSCWzLnA3urjuH pGZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV2VD0+5oOEdd24qHBu2qMkAdOntZMAoEPQfH78nGBrf5blyw3N Vxrbk1konSiTKECG0xzjRztRyHfzRkq6lrOH3nWEag==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxsIsGtBKOnqFHbLJ2A+WN+xnVvQFIg/KGLTKkHU8xwJA0ACCz8t2lAYbflNBdIvHtNxcEbGbYZIqiP+y7MYOA=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:dc08:: with SMTP id s8mr28187718ioc.209.1563937343223; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Shivan Sahib <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:02:16 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>, Stan Adams <>, Nick Feamster <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb7665058e6489f5"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] descriptive censorship work: draft-hall-censorship-tech
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 03:02:32 -0000

Hi Joe!

>>> -1 to extending the scope. That could be done in other
>>> documents, each of which would likely take some time. FWIW,
>>> personally, I'd recommend just getting this one to the
>>> RFC editor queue, pocketing the progress, and then the RG
>>> can move on to new documents documenting other mechanisms
>>> for and countering censorship.
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>> The suggestion to include censorship-countering techniques came up
>> because of the concern that as the draft stands, it would not fall under
>> PEARG's charter. Happy to hear disagreements about that though.
> Heya Shivan,
> I'd love to hear more elaboration here tomorrow about this (or on the list
> if you have time before then).
> I looked at the Charter and like Stephen I'm not necessarily seeing where
> it would require a descriptive draft about techniques also talk about
> mitigations. I suspect that RFC 6973's structure of "privacy threats" and
> "threat mitigations" is where the linking between threats and mitigations
> might come from in your mind? (So it's an implicit part of the Charter by
> reference to 6973?) Or maybe I'm missing a more direct link in the Charter
> text?

I mentioned the concerns mainly because it was brought up by someone to me
- it seems though that the group is in agreement that the document is worth
pursuing as-is (and I think so too), plus I agree that we want to avoid