<html>
<body>
Dear Folks,<br>
I wish to react to quite technically confusing reactions to Louis'
remarks. Confusing because Louis is probably one of the very few (cf.
infra) who consider the issues at their correct architectonical deepness.
Therefore, if we are not in technical tune with his architectural
considerations (not necessarily solution) I am afraid we are out of
scope.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>On 15:14 01/11/2013, Suresh
Ramasubramanian said:<br>
Correct. And If you, Louis, want to call him a liar as you seem to imply,
please do that on an ietf list or in personal mail to the
chair.</b></blockquote><br>
Suresh, Avri,<br><br>
I am not sure the IETF is a place to discuss this, except:<br><br>
* the
<a href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss">
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss</a> that the
IAB's Chair created in ... 2005 <br>
* possibly the IUCG@IETF
(<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki">http://iucg.org/wiki</a>) that the IETF
Chair (now IAB Chair) created in 2008 <br>
* and
<a href="https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech" eudora="autourl">
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech</a> list he created
recently. <br>
<br>
Please note that the two last lists are subject to an
agreement/disagreement by ISOC/IET/IAB and list chairs under discussion.
<br><br>
There is actually a need for an "ArchiTF". Now, should it be
under IETF, IUTF, ISOC, ITU, IGF, etc.? We need to know better.<br>
An over duplication of lists is probably not be productive and people
would cross-post. The lists must not be politically misleading as
seemingly endorsing the debated positions.<br>
There also are <u>copyrights </u>problems. This is why I delay my RFC
6852 appeal to ISOC in order to propose, as requested, a solution that
everyone could accept.<br><br>
Anyway, in my own reading, what Louis is saying is: "I have told you
for 40 years that you would find yourself with a problem by not listening
to me". <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>"Is IETF trying to make
us believe that they did not know about NSA shenanigans, published in
2005 "<br>
New chair since then.</blockquote><br>
</b>Actually three competent successors. <br>
- 2013-Present Jari Arkko <br>
- 2007-2013 Russ Housley <br>
- 2005-2007 Brian Carpenter <br>
- 2001-2005 Harald Alvestrand<br><br>
All fully able to identify the security bug as having not followed Louis'
achievements nor Norman Hardy's agorics in 1972/78. This was a
deliberately (technico-economical-politically aided) US choice. It
produced an unreliable/unsecure (by the time cheaper and experimental)
technology. This was an ARPA project with NSA involvement (cf. Vint
Cerf) and USG contractors. As often provisional lasted ... on purpose:
otherwise why NIPER-net and SIPER-net TCP/IP secure (*?) enhancements
would have been copied to the regular Internet (the NSA's
"SNIPER-net" - as there was the sniper alley in
Sajarevo?)<br><br>
(*?)
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/28/us-usa-crime-hacking-idUSBRE99R0LP20131028" eudora="autourl">
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/28/us-usa-crime-hacking-idUSBRE99R0LP20131028</a>
is quite interesting: backdoors at the NSA.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>I am not sure he is worrying
about what you do our do not believe. He seems to be announcing that the
ietf is going to work on the problem.</blockquote><br>
</b>Then, Jari and the rest of the IETF should be informed
twice!<br><br>
- unless to stop and replace the internet I do not see another
possibility to get a secure internet than to harden Louis' datagrams
(necessary but not sufficient) and his catenet model (cf. Vint Cerf's
http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt).<br><br>
- as I mentioned it, the IETF has worked on this matter since 2005. The
proper architectural orientation has been introduced by John Day
(<a href="http://pouzinsociety.org/challenges.html">
http://pouzinsociety.org/challenges.html</a>) who has met good support on
<a href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discus" eudora="autourl">
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discus</a>.<br><br>
<b><u>Comments<br><br>
</u></b>Choices had to be made, and they were not easy. They are to be
reviewed. Jari is not a liar! he/we still have a lot to learn and to work
a lot. Reading the situation otherwise would probably very misleading.
<br><br>
Now, to understand where we really stand, and the kind of whos that is
involved, you can have a look at:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.infres.enst.fr/wp/blog/francais/conference-quel-futur-pour-linternet-avec-vinton-cerf-bob-kahn-et-louis-pouzin/">
http://www.infres.enst.fr/wp/blog/francais/conference-quel-futur-pour-linternet-avec-vinton-cerf-bob-kahn-et-louis-pouzin/</a>
<br>
<a href="http://www.forumatena.org/node/245" eudora="autourl">
http://www.forumatena.org/node/245<br><br>
</a>You do not need to be able to read French to see the list of the
participants of the dialog that questioned the pioneers about
architectural security, neither to look at the pictures and see that the
research is in serious and friendly mood. This e-dialog was (and to my
knowledge is the only one to have occured) among the leading people from
ARPA, Cyclades and CNET OSI, and Tymnet architectures - except Doug
Engelbart, Hubert Zimmezrman (now both dead), and Norman Hardy I was not
able to join. <br><br>
We have reached a point where we have to reconsider everything
contributed for 40 years in the light of what was learned. There are some
cooperating "conceptual poles" in this debate over the whole
DNI (Digital Network Information) area (NSA term that fits the
OpenStand/RFC 6852 consortium opening with IEEE and RIRs). <br><br>
- IETF, Louis, Hardy, etc. are leading ones in the networking area, <br>
- as Andy Tanenbaum, Jonathan Shapiro, Theo de Raadt , Linus Torvald,
etc. are in OS.<br><br>
Probably at some point we will have secure, no-spam smart datagrams
exchanged between minix/OpenSecure capabilities enabled Linux machines
;-)<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>