IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] Tiny stacks

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.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 D8C2A1ADFAA for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7L-rF7uGwx3j for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA411A1F78 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wm4so5826597obc.10 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=R121+xNqFFFYp8bJ+n0S57I+qcROxLC5Uf5wE9Mm28k=; b=K1Dlvtga05Wk9DQj/ngIEDU+v2ogBWLuRvCtJ6CdPcbzs4mki8ujSEAdHaAA/K8Tve CQRr2aPigyGOusu0yJ3lRm1nUmzupgM+/sYurt2pwl39uNkF+ua/FvkMAVHsuyYTpLtV k4ntxSR/svKeM7KJTgCWuGRcdUZBMAlg7zw6D7R4GwjGqnogZESGwW573NVtQq9G+SJ2 k97N5UT2+vA//jlZc1R5PHXgwdt74TN7uR4it99BvVnIrpFaNYHqwBrXV2V1cgQWuKhH PwPHuCQPFygM4SVPWtNbwD4RXiHuxCwWpLcDnjY3sId5DtPxkfD/VoNVT42cXvITq6+z 2ZiA==
X-Received: by 10.182.42.105 with SMTP id n9mr17911039obl.33.1386701721335; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52A63CF9.7020303@gmail.com>
References: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E5103799@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <2C66A416-5F07-4803-A4C0-BB61734BA42E@nominum.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E510379A@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <529F7690.2050302@gmx.net> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E510379C@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <52A1BBBC.9090509@cs.tcd.ie> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E510379D@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <52A4D7D9.9000603@cs.tcd.ie> <52A4E412.4030804@gmail.com> <72B86100-E73E-46BD-ABD6-8E35D56DBDDA@cisco.com> <52A61E4C.6020403@gmail.com> <52A62E98.2060705@gmx.net> <52A63CF9.7020303@gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:55:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP8X7v9+F37WztvvcDw0ZhUvM+0-9g0v6dX7yT_QX6m97A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [perpass] Tiny stacks
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:55:28 -0000

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, but did you consider specifically the privacy and
> surveillance aspects? I'm concerned that counter-measures that can
> be easily incorporated in full size devices may be too heavy for
> tiny devices.

Brian: I'm not in the field but people I've spoken to have certainly
_considered_ the problems. I don't know what's made it into
deployment.  On the other hand, there's a good chance that industry
groups would be where these problems get worked on more than the IETF.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email