IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Thu, 28 July 2016 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F87112D7AD for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] 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 ykzRu33OQH3k for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from molamola.ripe.net (molamola.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E367412D78D for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by molamola.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1bSmM7-0007Bd-C4; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:32:12 +0200
Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-133.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1bSmM7-0005XV-7J; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:32:11 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FE1FA483-63A2-492B-9ED5-A80EBB143675"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <4866b582-0016-2136-1dc6-e95946eeff78@bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:32:10 +0200
Message-Id: <99F55C95-7589-4594-B1B1-8988682FBB46@ripe.net>
References: <yj9oinvzi8gj.wl%morrowc@ops-netman.net> <87E65996-2ACD-4A3A-8D20-1C7911CBBB72@tislabs.com> <58c60c65-b96c-4984-4ba4-4d4e64e51538@bbn.com> <yj9ofur2iqgd.wl%morrowc@ops-netman.net> <m28twudtww.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLab9Zaz1UjJfjJNmjU3FcMkF+mSYKLj7VGKEydK0FKOjJg@mail.gmail.com> <4866b582-0016-2136-1dc6-e95946eeff78@bbn.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --------
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -8.0 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4124]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a07198e812b62ce4be12dd189c93f7bb788d9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/bx3jLOo2aPwzzoBOtanDJHpL1Fg>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, sidr <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:32:23 -0000

Hi,

> On 22 Jul 2016, at 17:48, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> 
> It seems preferable to describe the first motivating case without reference to a specific RIR.

Although I appreciate that Randy is trying to explain the case in terms anyone can understand, it would be preferable to keep it general.

> (Including a parenthetical note about the historical precedent of a Dutch court order involving RIPE is relevant and might be included.)

If there was such a precedent, but there isn't. I have raised this before, but again...

The incident you refer to is in fact a case where the FBI asked the Dutch police to enforce an order issued by a US court, which would demand that the RIPE NCC take all measures to ensure that the suspect’s IP address registration was not transferred or amended.

And while the RIPE NCC initially carried out this order (to freeze, not remove/modify etc) it also immediately sought legal advice, and following that advice it was concluded that there was no legal basis for the order.

So, as far as precedents go, this is a different case altogether (freeze contact information, not remove/modify routing information), and actually points in the opposite direction.

More details here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/summons-of-the-ripe-ncc-against-the-state-of-the-netherlands



Tim

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status