[Pearg] My thoughts on PEARG after IETF 102 side meeting

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 17 July 2018 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFC712DD85 for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6rOsKLet2f1W for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (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 64A59130DDA for <pearg@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id r3-v6so1048975ywc.5 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Xfy8Krxnp/UXY8IfuVBaWWTz09Ugbkr9YEkbK44lq8U=; b=W6YdELjbxX6pD50sTxwn4M5CRk9DEkfWtZ541YY3OOvwQ1CwduTewe+ZqO0g0u5UVP 6RT2UYJfPrUYGb5Q5izvwHsNA5PeKgjzL2efN1cxsVVGwQmGLFG55lovh8kEsAl4kEsY 1KsWYOgNpDepMJrLSu8rO9KGoX/JihHOBh4XHRx8iRqHDEt/g9w0npmAmY2OKFlxxg17 e1t0+Iy7yPcPXWpvy4jO94pp3ZBH+aorHrX7ugzOt+cLoy1SS9HMo6oMIAgzmqOb7W57 jQziL+OjGE/k+ASrNBJ/5+pPKlQXgCudXNNz+ONkU/G51OFLHXkogFFdZx7TOvN1Mj6I UPjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Xfy8Krxnp/UXY8IfuVBaWWTz09Ugbkr9YEkbK44lq8U=; b=bgak+ebbHy2jIqqdk3lbXUVfjKsTdbzB9QZ8qSDRu8K2l7F9Bd87k6oTObeCYufnhh J5XwiXRIJK7p3u89IaK7W2R1XdfKHjRmXm5eBczBucweA6jgi31lMHshlrFHUKYlArBi QjMhJPtdC1PMjGaNLxt2rQECBpQPYiiaeNyBts0CvLEjUOwIKfWjnEVFDZWUBGgxB72w Roz5OPJuGFE2nBfj/eg91g2MoPOQ5lR6gKe1b8oJ9Oe4HxPTgofX+EH1SvzEcdb9n6+5 uJzVJt837kR2/B6E+e44u7TG9QE6+qHqnyBUV2RoGOI7EjK6MkXvpmtNwFfftLGCCMc9 b3WQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHfPt0HaWmz0mVh6E63XBVtBCUCmhVn1LgrH+b6l7gENSrrDveK 6frFIcBMCsvoVEeXW9eDBXqysFAzX/J32QQdk+jX5A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpctpw0GBtZHuoB94e/H3wy+dtZL9PK7omgvx405OyIKdCDWg4e6PaksgXOvPpjqjl1TTtZgz6EgtJmyXRUMlE4=
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ecd3:: with SMTP id v202-v6mr1894448ywe.311.1531870128181; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:28:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fsaLFe2oKg3itzWv7wXjtC_k0D24tmmug=tk=hERB7ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: pearg@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5156905713a4e19"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/nhyO_-i4RUzk_9b4sQEYvCVRrbU>
Subject: [Pearg] My thoughts on PEARG after IETF 102 side meeting
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 17 Jul 2018 23:28:52 -0000

Dear Privacy types,

Thanks for including remote participants.

I wanted to comment on a couple of things I was thinking about, while
listening in.  I'm commenting as an individual, but I'm responsible AD for
the QUIC working group, so you know (1) this isn't my area of clue, so I
could be asking dumb questions, and (2) I care.

The meeting mentioned PEARG involvement early in IETF protocol work, rather
than at PubReq time or later. That's good. I also wonder if there are
specific places in the IETF that could be a priority, because the IETF is a
big place, and I wonder if there are protocols that need as much scrutiny
as QUIC has been getting, but haven't gotten that scrutiny now, for various
reasons. If those could be prioritized, that might be awesome.

The meeting mentioned PEARG doing for privacy what CFRG does for crypto. I
think I understand what CFRG has to offer to the IETF, both in terms of
expertise and outputs (I've balloted on conflict reviews for all their RFCs
listed at
I'm having a harder time understanding what PEARG outputs would look like,
beyond the reviews mentioned in the proposed charter, but I look forward to
finding out.

I'd encourage you to do the type of reviews I heard discussed tonight.

The meeting mentioned HRPC reviews as one model. I've actually been on the
receiving end of one of those (on the MaRNEW IAB workshop report,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-marnew-report/). I found it
helpful to me. I'd suggest accepting solicitations to review, so authors
expect PEARG reviews (I didn't even know HRPC was doing reviews until I
opened my e-mail. It was a pleasant surprise, but it was a surprise).

I hope some of my thoughts are helpful. Best wishes in your explorations.

And thanks again for moving this forward.