On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 6/26/2015 12:37 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Den 25. juni 2015 17:56, skrev Joe Touch:
Nope. The IETF isn't political at all.
We take positions, and we're proud of it.
A Mission Statement for the IETF (RFC 3935) section 4.1 is most explicit:
The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want
the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment
to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as
decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of
resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of
the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the
technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that
we choose to create.
IMO, your interpretation of this as relating to political issues
mistakes the IETF for EFF.
Further, organizations that promote political agendas take great pains
to separate those events (and financial resources) from non-political
meetings. Otherwise, e.g., those on US gov't funds might be questioned
about their registration fees here.
I take the above instead to mean that the IETF should not "let a
thousand flowers bloom" but rather pick technologies based on their core
values. When the IETF has had opportunity to do this, they have
summarily and repeatedly failed in favor of the profits of their
participants. I have said repeatedly that "sometimes the right answer is
'no'".
Among the Snowden documents was the disclosure that the NSA had been
spending taxpayer money to undermine and subvert standards activities
including IETF.
As I pointed out to several folk in the administration after the original
story broke, I was asked to come out of retirement and work on securing the
net because they told me it was a matter of national importance to secure
the critical infrastructure. Now I discover that a US government agency
charged with protecting national security has been actively sabotaging my
work and that of the rest of us in the security area.
What we have created here is a technology trap that sprang shut roughly
twenty years ago with Western civilization inside. Without electricity,
sanitation and water, modern cities collapse within weeks. None of those
infrastructures have been designed for security and all are now connected
to network that allows attacks to be launched from any place in the world
with absolutely no hope of attribution.
At this point we can either let the generals in Russia China and the US
turn cyber into a new domain with the commercial and consulting
opportunities that offers or we can work on making those attacks
superfluous. Land, Sea and Air bleed three quarters of a trillion dollars
from the US exchequer every year. Are we going to allow them to make cyber
a domain and make it a round trillion?
The powerful IETF community reaction to the pervasive monitoring issue
just shows that what we adopted as IETF consensus in BCP 95, 2004 is
still what this community's about.
How exactly do the following fit with "resonating with the [IETF's} core
values" (e.g., the E2E principle, simple core/smart edge, etc.)? with
BCP95?:
- support for NAT
- support for DPI via deep parsing of IPv6 header chains
Seems to me those *enable* pervasive monitoring. Oh, yeah - that's OK
when it's for profit ;-)
If packets cross from an IPv4 network to an IPv6 network, the address will
inevitably change. The technical term for that is Network Address
Translation. Thus the requirement for NAT stems directly from the decision
to use a 32 bit address space for IPv4 and the fact that the global
population is of the order of ten billion.