On 18 sep 2009, at 21.46, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500 Matt Crawford <crawdad@xxxxxxxx> wrote:On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by commenting on the IETF discussion list, ...I'm trying to imagine the thought police remaining calm during a plenary such as the one at Danvers. I can't quite picture it.Speaking of Danvers -- what is the situation -- theory and practice --regarding encrypted transmissions to/from such a meeting? I think thata high percentage of IETF attendees are using various sorts of VPNs and/or encrypted tunnels for email retrieval, remote login, etc. Note that I'm assuming they don't care much if we discuss cryptographic technology (i.e., they're happy for the Security Area to meet). I'm just talking ordinary, day-to-day activities for many participants. N.B. It is extremely unlikely that I'd attend a meeting in that slot, regardless of where it was; my current $DAYJOB doesn't give me the luxury of attending most IETF meetings.
I access my network equipment located in China over SSH, and when I have been there I have accessed my network equipment in Stockholm over SSH. Didn't try any other cryptography as far as I can remember. Maybe SSL, but nothing I can reacall.
Best regards, - kurtis -
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf