On 2015-06-26 20:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx > <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On 6/26/2015 12:37 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > Den 25. juni 2015 17:56, skrev Joe Touch: > >> Nope. The IETF isn't political at all. > > > > We take positions, and we're proud of it. > > > > A Mission Statement for the IETF (RFC 3935) section 4.1 is most explicit: > > > > The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want > > the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment > > to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as > > decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of > > resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of > > the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the > > technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that > > we choose to create. > > IMO, your interpretation of this as relating to political issues > mistakes the IETF for EFF. > > Further, organizations that promote political agendas take great pains > to separate those events (and financial resources) from non-political > meetings. Otherwise, e.g., those on US gov't funds might be questioned > about their registration fees here. > > I take the above instead to mean that the IETF should not "let a > thousand flowers bloom" but rather pick technologies based on their core > values. When the IETF has had opportunity to do this, they have > summarily and repeatedly failed in favor of the profits of their > participants. I have said repeatedly that "sometimes the right answer is > 'no'". > > > Among the Snowden documents was the disclosure that the NSA had been > spending taxpayer money to undermine and subvert standards activities > including IETF. > > As I pointed out to several folk in the administration after the > original story broke, I was asked to come out of retirement and work on > securing the net because they told me it was a matter of national > importance to secure the critical infrastructure. Now I discover that a > US government agency charged with protecting national security has been > actively sabotaging my work and that of the rest of us in the security area. > > What we have created here is a technology trap that sprang shut roughly > twenty years ago with Western civilization inside. Without electricity, > sanitation and water, modern cities collapse within weeks. None of those > infrastructures have been designed for security and all are now > connected to network that allows attacks to be launched from any place > in the world with absolutely no hope of attribution. > > At this point we can either let the generals in Russia China and the US > turn cyber into a new domain with the commercial and consulting > opportunities that offers or we can work on making those attacks > superfluous. Land, Sea and Air bleed three quarters of a trillion > dollars from the US exchequer every year. Are we going to allow them to > make cyber a domain and make it a round trillion? > ... and that is why showing a movie about this isn't the worst idea I've seen the IETF have in recent years.