Hi Ted, Thanks for the draft. As you might guess from earlier discussion on here, I think the more-than-MTI approach espoused is maybe the right one, if we can figure out how to state the requirement well. Have you any ideas on that, or on how we could get towards a situation where that gained consensus?
I've a similar question wrt how to "consider more carefully and more consistently the effects of information leakage by DNS and other infrastructure" - any ideas how an effort in that direction could usefully be structured? Ta, S. On 10/20/2013 02:21 AM, Ted Hardie wrote: > Like most folks involved in this list, I have a personal response to the > current situation and some thoughts on how it will impact my or our work in > the future. Since I expect we will pretty short of mic time in Vancouver > for thoughts like these, I decided to write them out. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardie-perpass-touchstone-00 > > is the result. It's quite short but a quick summary is this: > > Pervasive monitoring induces self-censoring which harms the Internet and > its users. At the scale of the modern Internet, that means it harms > humanity. > > We can and should change our approach to Internet engineering and system > design to deal with this. There will be costs for that, but we should pay > them. > > It helps me, personally, to focus on a single user when asking whether a > system or protocol is appropriate in the current environment. The draft > lays out why. > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > > > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
