IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] privacy/PM reviews of existing stuff

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 01 February 2014 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 574221A05FD for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:09:09 -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 i-w3ufEBmJ9m for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5C71A05E3 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s11F91D4028144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:09:04 -0800
Message-ID: <52ED0DF1.6060400@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:08:33 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
References: <52E90863.5070805@cs.tcd.ie> <52E9235C.2030601@bbiw.net> <20140131105026.GB32380@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20140131105026.GB32380@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:09:04 -0800 (PST)
Cc: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [perpass] privacy/PM reviews of existing stuff
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:09:09 -0000

On 1/31/2014 2:50 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:50:52AM -0800,
>   Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote
>> We don't have a track record of those specific types of reviews and
>> I believe we are some distance away from having a shared, usable
>> model of what to review for.
>
> We don't start from zero, we have already RFC 6973 and its section 8
> is a very good example of privacy/PM analysis of an existing protocol.


That's nice input for someone considering how to do a PM review, yes, 
but my comment was about actual performance of PM reviews in the IETF.

Think of the example as being based on theory, and an actual review -- 
and all the group interaction that accompanies it -- as demonstrating 
practice.

Of course, in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, 
but...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email