IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 B34541AE2C2; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:06:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 bcJRdFQvH88J; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73F21AE1DD; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUp+1jjYhvXNIiaqwC7NDndhALRoQZgpk@postini.com; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:06:54 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB491B82D7; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7906190043; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:06:53 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E510379A@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:06:51 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <5E0CD496-A3B2-430D-BE6D-119D633724D6@nominum.com>
References: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E5103799@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <2C66A416-5F07-4803-A4C0-BB61734BA42E@nominum.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E510379A@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
To: "<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>" <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>, bruce@perens.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [perpass] Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: 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: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 23:06:59 -0000

On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:55 PM, <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> Where are these being discussed? It's a response to an IETF draft, ergo ietf@ietf.org is entirely appropriate. That Perens doesn't submit it as an internet-draft in response just suggests lack of political nous.

On the perpass mailing list.

> Way to go on the selective quoting - I see you ignore the DRM point. Sheesh, you can't even give a pointer to the refutations you apparently cite.

This too has been discussed.   The point in the case of DRM is that while DRM is indeed, as you say, eminently breakable, breaking it is inconvenient.   So putting DRM on everything increases costs for those who want to see the plaintext of everything.

> Don't you have anything substantial to say yourself, other than snarky oneliners?

I try not to repeat points that people smarter than I have already made, but I do take your point that this discussion is sufficiently widely splattered that nobody can possibly have followed every bit of it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email