IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] Howdy!

Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> Sat, 14 September 2013 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <nb@bollow.ch>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038C911E8181 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9RDQgCqdkXWl for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from beta.bollow.ch (beta.bollow.ch [193.37.152.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EB011E818E for <perpass@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from quill (170-70.78-83.cust.bluewin.ch [83.78.70.170]) by beta.bollow.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7C8F1404BD; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 21:11:15 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 21:06:55 +0200
From: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
To: perpass@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130914210655.067c9a68@quill>
In-Reply-To: <5234A2E3.2050604@appelbaum.net>
References: <CAOHm=4ujOYTHO63EFWMYJBgxUWq00zezYKAJ8B4Vgf_C=xRRVg@mail.gmail.com> <5224DF25.60503@cs.tcd.ie> <7C92613E-33E8-48A6-A152-E9DBB29DEC04@softarmor.com> <522A328A.5060008@cs.tcd.ie> <522E17F9.4000206@bbn.com> <7DA623C5-E8C4-437F-BFC9-0CDD350853A8@softarmor.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130914054829.0b2a32d8@resistor.net> <5234A2E3.2050604@appelbaum.net>
Organization: GoalTree Empowerment
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [perpass] Howdy!
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for discussion of the privacy properties of IETF protocols and concrete ways in which those could be improved. " <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: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:07:04 -0000

Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@appelbaum.net> wrote:
> SM:
> > The IETF has been operating in "good enough" mode since a long
> > time. Some proposals do not get widespread review.  There are
> > variations of RFC 6302 in the IETF RFCs.  When I raised a "privacy
> > issue" some time back the only person who supported the argument
> > was Stephen Farrell. The amount of effort to raise a "privacy
> > issue" is discouraging.
> > 
> 
> Seems like that isn't a problem now, right? Water under the bridge,
> perhaps? I have also seen a lot of IETF privacy and security weirdness
> but it is clear that things are improving now.

At some point in the future it will be good to do some kind of post
mortem analysis to figure out how it happened that things went so badly
off track in regard to privacy protection.

But I agree, the Snowden disclosures definitely mark a turning point.

Privacy concerns are going to get taken serious now.

Greetings,
Norbert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email