Re: [perpass] perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 05 December 2013 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA141ACC8A for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=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 OOPObB_FIpYb for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32701AC4C5 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A5672802BB; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:17:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5584328019C; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:17:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:8::7:113]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542EE4C007C; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:17:10 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:17:10 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
Message-ID: <20131205091710.GC8524@nic.fr>
References: <E2DA1477-C86E-441E-A33D-D47A0D67AFF3@iab.org> <EF9BD1E4-6EF3-4035-AC4E-1A2D3CADE615@mnot.net> <529E8494.7000806@perens.com> <20131204111309.GB11727@nic.fr> <529F7B3B.5020901@gmail.com> <529F91C9.6060906@perens.com> <529F9E01.2000306@gmail.com> <529FAFE2.8060205@perens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <529FAFE2.8060205@perens.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 7.2
X-Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: perpass@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [perpass] perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:17:45 -0000

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:42:42PM -0800,
 Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> wrote 
 a message of 51 lines which said:

>    It was incredibly successful. There was a competing stack design
>    in the OSI protocols which went nowhere. IMO the reason for
>    success was the simplicity.

Do note there is an entire (and excellent) RFC dedicated to the
reasons for success of a protocol, RFC 5218. Recommended reading before
continuing this discussion. 

Executive summary of RFC 5218: better to have no security at the
beginning (in order to be simple and easy) *but* to be able to add it
later (because with success come security problems).