Re: [RTG-DIR] extremely rapid reviews/comments on "Effects of Encryption" (draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt)

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 12 April 2017 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FA612EBF7 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 01:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.874
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.874 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=1.125, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivlyW5iLzZVZ for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 01:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ABFA12EA97 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 01:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o21so12578554wrb.2 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 01:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=E6F9ZfI0unM21t6DUNF7ZFHTb3wHkBeBsYw+r0qaaXw=; b=s86DCrCohRg3ReHrscKMHWRr+MHUzRgdyA13TZ+n63KXZF0LRQKiapkUDn8e6AV5i1 TmqnKJrrZvfYU/yMIj8W9inGw64p17nRSwAVouTLxem5KmE1I4hFSewXaLoejfJa1UBA JPvmy5If24uYrEWsGUIredPrHwsbAHLJC5n7TP9ItjlN+uMOSoapJB9xu57z5FLutypS 3ddK3FrQ3/uByFGCSuGNvw4R6HoCMMsJCCu+md5+wEFz0z/TsZlQ//+mI06oSNQ6CR+M appJZtIbz/yQuleIB4QluxJBW9SkGcR9KhW8iNPGeyevc0eyNZJK4M+qtH4iI3Wj9PeK ZIlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=E6F9ZfI0unM21t6DUNF7ZFHTb3wHkBeBsYw+r0qaaXw=; b=chD8302IRRJ0SYPM5CE6HurQwuXKdJE5pWysArluW6JKbZbqPg0SB4jth6jxUsjCaK iHZT/qMMuYLF/SmRUeT7kX/hXLYU9pUewmutopfS5DEZ/yn1Kts4M2nv+uRsrPc5KNre /GH2UalzoPhKPmIqedhdVHn6toV3pOehm9ztbfA49e7FhtslfShQN2zMrfQSSn2KW2ep rnrvVVniq4VbJ/+is0mK/tLYfaBUxDBvC+31NtaiQyrA0HNTplUJsgf5X+mMJIuo7Fli +28fJLw+IJrPuWLXFSZDoDkMDmB6ilSBziIMiF3/5TySj/K0BmBA5h2x9QnkCMd/2kpy FqcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4/WU+Uz8NNVC5XkR5yR8v7YyD8HbGXWHgxdeDU/FNBaSnjWj7/pSRLygWW/rcj9A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id c39mr1849709wrc.16.1491986147132; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 01:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id q31sm24152792wrb.3.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 01:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alia Atlas <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:35:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BF9E2E8FC004CA7F6ACD5BF4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] extremely rapid reviews/comments on "Effects of Encryption" (draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:35:57 -0000

On 12/04/2017 01:08, Alia Atlas wrote:
> draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt 
> <%20>reads 
> very differently to folks depending on their background, as you
> can see from the thread starting at 
> It is back on the IESG telechat for this Thursday.  It's unclear 
> whether that will resolve the discussion about the document or if it 
> will continue.
> If any of you were motivated to read the draft and provide a calm and 
> rational review that is respectful of different viewpoints, that would 
> be appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Alia

I only have time to scan read this before tomorrow, but I think Alexey 
Melnikov's comment summarises what I gleaned from the document so far: 
"This document is not perfect, but I found it to be generally useful".

This is a subject that we need a more open discussion about in the IETF. 
You would think from the vocal IETF position that the situation was a 
clear cut: monitoring is bad therefore encryption is good. What this 
document is trying to demonstrate is that there are pluses and minuses 
to encryption, just as there are are pluses and minuses to traffic 
monitoring. This document therefore  attempts to moves us to a more 
balanced discussion of the problem, and as such it makes a valuable 
contribution to the design of the Internet.

If at the end of there is no IESG consensus to publish this in the IETF 
stream, I think it should be taken to the Independent stream the purpose 
of which is to provide a platform to articulate well thought out 
technical views that are contra to the mainstream position.

- Stewart