And as is traditional, we've added a few days:-) Final deadline is end of Monday Jan 20 anywhere on Earth (== 1200 UTC Jan 21). And that will be a hard deadline. There's also a bit more logistics stuff now at [1]. Cheers, S. [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/strint/ On 01/09/2014 01:55 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Folks, submissions are starting to roll in so this is > a reminder to send yours by Jan 15. We'll be posting > more logistics next week(-ish) as well in case you're > wondering. > > Thanks, > S. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: W3C/IAB workshop on Strengthening the Internet Against > Pervasive Monitoring (STRINT) > Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:48:15 -0500 > From: IAB Chair <iab-chair@xxxxxxx> > To: IETF Announce <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> > CC: IAB <iab@xxxxxxx>, IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > > W3C/IAB workshop on Strengthening the Internet > Against Pervasive Monitoring (STRINT) > ====================================== > > Logistics/Dates: > > Submissions due: Jan 15 2014 > Invitations issued: Jan 31 2014 > Workshop Date: Feb 28 (pm) & Mar 1 (am) 2014 > To be Confirmed - could be all day Mar 1 > Location: Central London, UK. IETF Hotel or nearby (TBC) > For queries, contact: stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx, tech@xxxxxxxxx > Send submissions to: group-strint-submission@xxxxxx > Workshop web site: http://www.w3.org/2014/strint/ > > The Vancouver IETF plenary concluded that pervasive monitoring > represents an attack on the Internet, and the IETF has begun to > carry out various of the more obvious actions [1] required to > try to handle this attack. However, there are additional much > more complex questions arising that need further consideration > before any additional concrete plans can be made. > > The W3C and IAB will therefore host a one-day workshop on the > topic of "Strengthening the Internet Against Pervasive > Monitoring" before IETF-89 in London in March 2014, with support > from the EU FP7 STREWS [2] project. > > Pervasive monitoring targets protocol data that we also need for > network manageability and security. This data is captured and > correlated with other data. There is an open problem as to how > to enhance protocols so as to maintain network manageability and > security but still limit data capture and correlation. > > The overall goal of the workshop is to steer IETF and W3C work > so as to be able to improve or "strengthen" the Internet in the > face of pervasive monitoring. A workshop report in the form of > an IAB RFC will be produced after the event. > > Technical questions for the workshop include: > > - What are the pervasive monitoring threat models, and what is > their effect on web and Internet protocol security and privacy? > - What is needed so that web developers can better consider the > pervasive monitoring context? > - How are WebRTC and IoT impacted, and how can they be better > protected? Are other key Internet and web technologies > potentially impacted? > - What gaps exist in current tool sets and operational best > practices that could address some of these potential impacts? > - What trade-offs exist between strengthening measures, (e.g. > more encryption) and performance, operational or network > management issues? > - How do we guard against pervasive monitoring while maintaining > network manageability? > - Can lower layer changes (e.g., to IPv6, LISP, MPLS) or > additions to overlay networks help? > - How realistic is it to not be fingerprintable on the web and > Internet? > - How can W3C, the IETF and the IRTF better deal with new > cryptographic algorithm proposals in future? > - What are the practical benefits and limits of "opportunistic > encryption"? > - Can we deploy end-to-end crypto for email, SIP, the web, all > TCP applications or other applications so that we mitigate > pervasive monitoring usefully? > - How might pervasive monitoring take form or be addressed in > embedded systems or different industrial verticals? > - How do we reconcile caching, proxies and other intermediaries > with end-to-end encryption? > - Can we obfuscate metadata with less overhead than TOR? > - Considering meta-data: are there relevant differences between > protocol artefacts, message sizes and patterns and payloads? > > Position papers (maximum of 5 pages using 10pt font or any > length Internet-Drafts) from academia, industry and others that > focus on the broader picture and that warrant the kind of > extended discussion that a full day workshop offers are the most > welcome. Papers that reflect experience based on running code > and deployed services are also very welcome. Papers that are > proposals for point-solutions are less useful in this context, > and can simply be submitted as Internet-Drafts and discussed on > relevant IETF or W3C lists, e.g. the IETF perpass list. [3] > > The workshop will be by invitation only. Those wishing to attend > should submit a position paper or Internet-Draft. All inputs > submitted and considered relevant will be published on the > workshop web page. The organisers (STREWS project participants, > IAB and W3C staff) will decide whom to invite based on the > submissions received. Sessions will be organized according to > content, and not every accepted submission or invited attendee > will have an opportunity to present as the intent is to foster > discussion and not simply to have a sequence of presentations. > > [1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/perpass.txt > [2] http://www.strews.eu/ > [3] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > > > > > > > >