Re: [perpass] perpass: what next?

  Hi all,

Congratulations on the great work to date.  But let's understand, that 
while the workproducts to date will help shore up the security of our 
legacy internet architecture, My impression after Snowden et. is that 
the whole stack offers up a vast exploitable attack surface. and that 
IETF ought to begin _serious_ consideration of completely new secure 
architectures - e.g.  a secure onion/tor routed peer internet,  
meshnets, blockchains for cerificated authentication ., etc.     It's a 
little ironic that the  military, IC and black hats already have secure 
p2p internets,  Isn't it time for the rest of us to enjoy the same 
levels of privacy and security, and *resilience*?

Michael Liebhold
Senior Researcher, Distinguished Fellow
Institute for the Future
@mikeliebhold  @iftf

On 4/17/15 4:29 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> I think this list has been really useful since we started it back
> in August 2013. We initiated a bunch of new work on here (e.g. cfrg
> curves, tcpinc, dprive, rfc7258) and I think the concerns dealt
> with here have influenced lots of other work in the IETF as well.
> Many thanks for all that great input and of course most of the
> things above aren't finished, but even so, we're now looking for
> some more great input:-)
>
> The IESG will be meeting f2f in early May at our "retreat" and one
> of the topics on that agenda is "where next with perpass" so your
> ideas on that are very welcome.
>
> Please discuss those here and/or send 'em to the IESG or to some
> random AD or to me. But discussing 'em on this list is way better,
> and of course even betterer is to write an I-D (and please do point
> again at ones you've written, just to refresh folks' minds).
>
> While I do have some ideas, I'd rather not skew the discussion by
> throwing those out right now. I will also report back here after
> the IESG discussion.
>
> And just as a reminder, we've used this list mostly for very
> initial discussions and seen all chunky items of work handled
> elsewhere, be that in current WGs or by forming new WGs or
> whatever. I think that's been a good mode of operation so far,
> so we're not really asking here about how to change that, but
> rather for discussion of which topics we can usefully try handle
> in that same way over the coming year or two.
>
> So, fire away...
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> perpass mailing list
> perpass@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
>