ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

2013-12-11 16:11:37
I read the draft as giving de facto control of all IETF output to the security 
directorate.

Which I would regard as an attack on the IETF...

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell 
[stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie]
Sent: 11 December 2013 21:19
To: John C Klensin; Brian E Carpenter; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive 
Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

I've a question about the relevance of your comment
John:

On 12/11/2013 08:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
 if encryption
were pervasive

The draft in question does not call for that. It calls
for proper consideration of the pervasive monitoring
attack and work to mitigate that.

Use of encryption for confidentiality will be a relevant
mitigation for various protocols, but to comment as if
this draft called for ubiquitous confidentiality seems
very odd if one has read the draft.

John - can you say what part of the draft caused you to
incorrectly conclude that "pervasive encryption" (whatever
that means) is even being discussed never mind recommended?

Thanks,
S.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>