Re: [Pearg] Thanks!

Mallory Knodel <> Thu, 08 November 2018 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18A7130DC8 for <>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 22:37:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WiGMQ0vA7Yv for <>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 22:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 749AD12D4ED for <>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 22:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1gKdwT-0000tY-R1; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 07:37:26 +0100
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 06:37:25 +0000
From: Mallory Knodel <>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.7.11_GA_1854 (zclient/8.7.11_GA_1854)
Thread-Topic: Thanks!
Thread-Index: nj51MRFF0+KCS+B726NikthonI56cQ==
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at
X-Scan-Signature: 4cc6a862e0a753e674eb374334b394fd
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Thanks!
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: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 06:37:31 -0000

Excellent. This will be a useful reference and thanks for sharing it. 

----- Original Message -----
From: Mirja Kühlewind <>
To: Mallory Knodel <>
Sent: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 05:06:33 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Thanks!

Hi Mallory, hi all,

please note that RFC 7258 has one paragraph on this tension:

"While PM is an attack, other forms of monitoring that might fit the
   definition of PM can be beneficial and not part of any attack, e.g.,
   network management functions monitor packets or flows and anti-spam
   mechanisms need to see mail message content.  Some monitoring can
   even be part of the mitigation for PM, for example, certificate
   transparency [RFC6962] involves monitoring Public Key Infrastructure
   in ways that could detect some PM attack techniques.  However, there
   is clear potential for monitoring mechanisms to be abused for PM, so
   this tension needs careful consideration in protocol design.  Making
   networks unmanageable to mitigate PM is not an acceptable outcome,
   but ignoring PM would go against the consensus documented here.  An
   appropriate balance will emerge over time as real instances of this
   tension are considered.“


> Am 08.11.2018 um 10:53 schrieb Mallory Knodel <>:
> On 07/11/2018 18:39, Shivan Sahib wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for attending the meeting today, especially our
>> presenters. Apologies that we ran over by a bit, and it would be good to
>> continue the conversations on list. Also if people have ideas on what
>> would be good work items for the RG, please suggest!
> Thanks for a great meeting, Shivan!
> I'm interested in working on a draft that addresses the inherent tension
> between measurement and privacy. I've spoken to a few academics about
> the topic already but if there is anyone currently engaged in this group
> who would like to help with the structure of this document I'm open to
> discussing off list at this stage!
> -Mallory
> -- 
> Mallory Knodel
> Head of Digital ::
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
> -- 
> Pearg mailing list