Re: [perpass] comments and questions for the group on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:10:52PM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> But isn't TEMPORA an "operational reality"? And CALEA?
> And aren't TLS MITM attack boxes?
> ...
> 
> Fair enough. The draft already says that unmanageable networks
> wouldn't be an acceptable outcome though, so again I don't
> see what change is needed.

I don't think we can make any changes here already, but I'll note the
ambiguity is enough that in this brand-new multi-stakeholder world,
what if the Chinese government shows up and claims that without TLS
MITM attack boxes, in their opinion the network is "unmanageable"?

(Of course they will mean in the political sense, but who's to make
the call about whether a network is really unmanageable from a
political or an operational standpoint?)

And the NSA has already tried making the case that passing unencrypted
packets as well as "just metadata" to their collection boxes it the
only way to protect the nation against malware.  If we accept that
this is also required for a "manageable network", then we can't do
anything at all, which I hope is not what we consider a desired
outcome....

So if anything, the draft may be too ambiguous and mealy-mouthed
already, although from a political standpoint it may not be possible
to remove that phrase.

					- Ted




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]