"privacy properties of IETF protocols and concrete ways in which
those could be improved."
to repeat my statement from berlin, privacy by default. and as many
places as we can enable it.
If we -- the IETF community -- had a definition of privacy, that would
help, but we don't.
If we knew what it meant to 'enable privacy' (nevermind whether by
default), that would also help, but we don't.
So the idea of 'privacy by default' well could serve as a useful
catch-phrase, but at the moment, it lacks technical substance. We have
no shared, technical understanding of its meaning.
No doubt you have particulars in mind. No doubt lots of folks have
their own set of particulars. Unfortunately each person's particulars
tends to be different.
So what we lack are a) anything like a specific technical meaning for
privacy, b) any system-level sense of what it means to provide privacy,
or c) any prioritization of privacy issues so that we can get the most
benefit from initial efforts.
My question was meant to prompt discussion at a technical level. There
have been the tiniest wisps of comment on the list that might provide
touchstones for this, but they haven't been pursued. We need to pursue
them.
Catch-phrases will be useful to summarize the results.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
