Well, I look forward to hearing someone identify that research. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Jun 3, 2022, at 1:56 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Fred, > >> On 03/06/2022 21:44, Fred Baker wrote: >> I guess I would like to understand what privacy-promoting mechanisms >> you would find acceptable. > > My concern is that such a thing might not exist, so I can't > give you a positive answer I'm afraid. (Where "thing" is a > privacy-friendly SAVI-like Internet-scale something - if I'm > reading the charter so badly that nothing SAVI-like is > envisaged then perhaps that indicates other problems with the > charter text.) > >> For example, I could imagine some form of >> nonce or address-hiding mechanism known only by the communicating >> parties, perhaps exchanged during some form of encrypted call setup >> protocol. > > That's why I asked about research. If it could be done I'd > bet some academic has published on the topic. (It's not my > field so I've not looked, hence just asking.) > > Cheers, > S. > >> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... >>> On Jun 3, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> Hey Alvaro and Stephen, >>>>> I oppose the creation of this working group on the basis that >>>>> it makes no mention of privacy. Extending the kind of >>>>> privacy-unfriendly source address validation mechanisms (unwisely IMO) used, to something deployed at Internet-scale, could be a major error. >>>> The WG won't be chartered to extend existing mechanisms. >>>> If there's text that gives that impression we should fix it. >>> Weeeell, I read... >>> | The "Source Address Validation in Intra-domain and Inter-domain >>> Networks | (SAVNET)" working group will define routing >>> protocol-independent architectures | and procedures to accurately >>> determine the valid incoming router interfaces | for specific >>> source prefixes. The accuracy of the enhancements is expected | to >>> improve upon current SAV mechanisms. >>> ...to mean that procedures and enhancements would be defined. >>> Actually, I interpreted the whole charter as "examine existing >>> approaches and develop new techniques" and read it in that light. >>> Maybe the charter could be clearer up front that no new mechanisms >>> or extensions to existing mechanisms will be defined. >>> What am I missing? >>> Cheers, Adrian
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: Binary data
