Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 20 November 2013 22:44 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 0DFC01AE1EE for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] 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 FjIaVfXKzRNf for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573E61AE4DB for <perpass@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:44:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E9EBE6E; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:43:54 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U+3rDFVPMpeK; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:43:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.12] (unknown [86.44.78.110]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8FE8BE68; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:43:52 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <528D3B28.8020406@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:43:52 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <528D34D7.1010303@cs.tcd.ie> <528D3A85.5090003@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <528D3A85.5090003@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft
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, 20 Nov 2013 22:44:05 -0000
On 11/20/2013 10:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Just do it. I wish:-) > However, I am concerned by the 'bad actor' phrase. The problem is > that it's fine as explained in the draft, but it's highly likely to > be quoted out of context and thereby cause confusion. It would be > safer to use a neutral term ('observer'? 'surveyor'?). Fair point, and "bad-actor" doesn't fit that well anyway. Will find a better term or gladly take suggestions. S. > > Regards > Brian > > On 21/11/2013 11:16, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Following up on item 3a from the status/plan mail [1] I sent >> last week, Hannes and myself have written up an I-D [2] that >> tries to capture the consensus in the room from the Vancouver >> tech plenary and we're proposing as a BCP. >> >> We're deliberately trying to keep this short and sweet and to >> not (yet) go beyond what was the gist of the hums - we think >> progressing e.g. the threat model or the privacy BCP or other >> bits of related work is liable to take longer and there's value >> in documenting that the IETF as a whole has consensus on the >> most significant bit first so those and other bits of work >> don't all have to re-establish that as they are processed. >> Hopefully we can all easily agree that that's a useful target >> and focus comments on whether on not we've expressed that >> consensus well or not. >> >> <boring-bit> >> We've been bouncing versions of this around amongst the IESG >> and IAB for the last week, and process-wise, that has been >> fun already. As you'll see from section 3 of the draft, we can >> no longer just shoot out an RFC agreed by the IESG and IAB so >> the plan for this is that when Hannes and I figure this looks >> ready, based on your comments, then we'll ask Jari to start a >> 4-week IETF LC for it. When he thinks that's ok he'll start it >> and then we'll see how that goes. Assuming that goes well, then >> sometime during IESG evaluation the IAB will decide if they >> like the final text (or not, which'd be "interesting") and if >> they do then an IAB note saying "yep, we like it" will be added >> sometime during/after IESG evaluation before this goes to the >> RFC editor. In an ideal world, you'll all love the -00 already >> and tell us that and we'll be done with all of the above super >> duper process stuff by the end of the year. (Haven't we built >> ourselves a lovely crazy process? ;-) >> >> I really hope we don't end up with a process debate over this, >> since the above, silly and all as it is, should achieve the >> desirable outcome which is a simple BCP, approved by the IESG >> after an IETF LC and also supported by the IAB. The value in >> that is that it seems to be as close as we can get to the same >> setup as RFCs 1984 and 2804 which is the right kind of heritage >> for this one. So there is a reasonably good reason for the >> process-crap. >> </boring-bit> >> >> Anyway, ignoring process, comments on this are welcome, so >> please take a read of the two pages of content and let us know >> what you think. If you do think its already good enough for >> starting an IETF last call, then saying that is useful as well. >> >> And since the IETF LC will happen on the ietf@ietf.org list, >> using this list for initial processing should be fine. >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/msg01016.html >> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-perpass-attack >> _______________________________________________ >> perpass mailing list >> perpass@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass >> > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > perpass@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > >
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Ralf Skyper Kaiser
- [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Stephen Farrell
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Stephen Farrell
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft joel jaeggli
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Rob Stradling
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft joel jaeggli
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Stephen Farrell
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Paul Ferguson
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Stephen Farrell
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Yoav Nir
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Jon Callas
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Robin Wilton
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft SM
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Stephen Kent
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Robin Wilton
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Warren Kumari
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Dean Willis
- Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft Jari Arkko