Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 06 February 2018 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A0412AF6E; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 01:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oBJKFgnvr7b5; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 01:36:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A98F129C56; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 01:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w169aGb1016437; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:36:16 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([193.57.120.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w169aDJv016423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:36:15 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Alissa Cooper' <alissa@cooperw.in>, 'Stewart Bryant' <stewart@g3ysx.org.uk>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process.all@ietf.org
References: <151782868264.5731.15496399706573021777@ietfa.amsl.com> <F3AE809A-C4A2-4FCE-91BF-3C64D80E6ACF@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <F3AE809A-C4A2-4FCE-91BF-3C64D80E6ACF@cooperw.in>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:36:11 -0000
Message-ID: <02b801d39f2d$ee76e3b0$cb64ab10$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJAyK6XtK9sxxAnkvxG8l8DYz+99QGCGlHxorC0DHA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.2.0.1013-23644.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.284-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--15.284-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: eVEkOcJu0F4n2WEbWzq9rUq6xZmdRGuGC/ExpXrHizy67Q3uPo9KI/rT e3paVFiA374LMa56PLIENbpXvcVzdG0Qd9l441yr+L2GsArAgtpRwfT2oEaYdG9TvcQdRVspgMZ A34nTe3CH8chsRYW/9Sw88QS16yTir5uORvQzgSTFoLoGK2AqdCseSAhqf1rRHMKGytBbXD99o3 YIJ3e/D1NR12hBslvJwziWFlFSRAtpqqYAQ+J6uaibLd5pZnaumX+W7bzPOQGU8M8AoUJqhtuLs mxjX+WpcpHnWbsoNKw6jAEtO24C6lU2//bZZ0l/4mYxmYubDHlG27i+2OO3NPgnJH5vm2+gGbNu SeNqcN+ZlLoF6Q+pN5abJvpC2GSsTX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHt0H8LFZNFG7JQhrLH5KSJ0=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/QLMnMwpbU9iiJEUzgZjCM_u6t0g>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:36:26 -0000

Hi all,

> > 8.  Privacy Considerations
> >
> >   This note reveals no personally identifying information apart from
> >   its authorship.
> >
> > SB> This is true, but does spawn the question of whether privacy should
> > be a meeting location selection criteria?
> 
> Any actionable criterion that I can conceive of to address this would likely
render
> our already tiny set of acceptable locations to roughly zero. If you have a
proposal
> that would do otherwise, feel free to suggest it.

In the spirit of Privacy Considerations for protocol specs we should not
necessarily be looking to resolve all privacy concerns, but we should be looking
to expose them so that participants can be aware of the risks and can mitigate
them or choose to not participate.

I would certainly agree that we are unlikely to find a nation stat that
perfectly respects personal and online privacy, but that need not be the
objective. Nor need it be a requirement that the IAOC report on the privacy of a
venue when announcing it. On the other  hand, I bet we would all agree that a
venue that assigned a government official to accompany us at all times listening
to our conversations and noting our sleeping habits would rule itself out. So
there are lines :-)

But what this section should say is something like...

==
Physical and remote participants at IETF meetings should be aware that privacy
norms vary considerably from country to country. Participants with a concern for
their personal or work-related privacy are advised to familiarise themselves
with the privacy risks associated with a venue before attending. Concerns may
include privacy of Internet communications, record of having travelled, and
freedom of association. Some people may have particular concern for the privacy
of information stored on electronic devices when they cross specific national
borders. 

Participants are responsible for taking their own measures in mitigation.

In general, the meeting selection process will not take privacy concerns into
consideration and will not seek to report on them to the community for any
chosen venue. However, it is expected that the selection process will exclude
venues where privacy of attendees is known to be particularly at risk. Such
exclusions might include (although not be limited to) venues where attendees
cannot use VPNs or other security mechanisms to access their home networks and
the Internet in general.
==

...I'm not wedded to that - I only had 4 hours sleep  :-)

Adrian