Subject: Re: [Medup] MEDUP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1

From: Iraklis Symeonidis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 12:28:22 +0200

Hi guys,

Can you please add also Borce in the MEDUP mailing list and in all communications that you are forwarding to us?

Thanks!

Best,
Iraklis
————————————————————————————
Post-doctoral researcher
SnT / APSIA, University of Luxembourg
JFK Building, 29, avenue JF Kennedy,
L-1855, Luxembourg
(+352) 46 66 44  5594

www.iraklissymeonidis.info
————————————————————————————

> On 4 Jun 2019, at 21:00, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Send MEDUP mailing list submissions to
> 	[email-masked]
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/medup
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	[email-masked]
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	[email-masked]
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MEDUP digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. IETF-104 minutes and materials (Bernie Hoeneisen)
> 
> From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [Medup] IETF-104 minutes and materials
> Date: 4 June 2019 at 16:46:07 GMT+2
> To: IETF MEDUP ML <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> Hi everybody
> 
> During IETF-104 in Prague we had the first MEDUP (non-WG) meeting.
> 
> * The meeting material and recordings can be found on:
>  https://pep.foundation/docs/ietf/104/medup/
> 
> * The minutes are pasted below (for your convenience) and can be found on:
>  https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-104-medup
> 
> Should any corrections be required, please let us know
> 
> 
> All the best
> Bernie et al.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> http://ucom.ch/
> Tech Consulting for Internet Technology
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Minutes
> =======
> 
> MEDUP @ IETF-104:
> URL: https://pep.foundation/dev/repos/internet-drafts/raw-file/tip/medup/ietf-104/notes-ietf-104-medup-00.txt
> 
> 
> Revision 00:
> ------------
> 
> MEDUP -- Missing Elements for Decentralized and Usable Privacy
> Non-WG meeting @ IETF-104, Prague (Tyrolka room, Thu 2019-03-28, 18:15-19:30)
> 
> * Mailing list: [email-masked];
>  subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/MEDUP
> 
> * Agenda:
>  * Opening / Agenda Bashing [chairs]
>  * Introduction to MEDUP [chairs]
>  * Privacy Threat Modeling [Iraklis Symeonidis (SnT / uni.lu)]
>  * The Missing Element in the Room [Gabriele Lenzini (SnT / uni.lu)]
>  * Introduction to pEp [Hernani]
>  * Document Status
>    * draft-birk-pep-03 [Bernie]
>    * draft-birk-pep-trustwords-03 [Bernie]
>    * draft-marques-pep-handshake-02 [Bernie]
>    * draft-marques-pep-rating-01 [Bernie]
>    * draft-marques-pep-email-02 /
>      draft-luck-lamps-pep-header-protection-01 [Claudio]
>  * Open Issues [Bernie, Hernani]
>  * Next Steps [chairs]
>  * Open Mic
> 
> (Last change: 2019-03-28 // rev: 08)
> 
> * Slides / Streams: https://pep.foundation/docs/ietf/104/medup/
> 
> * Minutes
>  * Opening / Agenda Bashing [chairs]
>    * Chairs open the meeting including Note Well
>    * No requests for agenda bashing
> 
>  * Introduction to MEDUP [chairs]
>    * MEDUP is about of enhancements to application protocols for
>      decentralized usable privacy
>    * RFC 8280 has identified and documented important principles in such
>      as Data Minimization, End-to-End and Interoperability in order to
>      enable access to Human Rights. While (partial) implementations of
>      these concepts are already available, today's applications widely
>      lack Privacy support that ordinary users can easily handle.
>    * In MEDUP these issues are addressed based on Opportunistic Security
>      (RFC 7435) principles. Updates/usage clarifications to application
>      level protocols such as email and XMPP are in scope.
>    * There are other groups doing work in the area, such as HRPC, PEARG,
>      DINRG
>    * MEDUP aims go go beyond just principles, i.e., specifications for
>      Running Code
> 
>  * Privacy Threat Modeling [Iraklis Symeonidis (SnT / uni.lu)]
>    * Different users might have different privacy needs
>      (journalists/whistleblowers, average users, corporate users)
>    * There might be different attackers, from local attackers to global
>      ones (global adversaries)
>    * Different threats like detectability, linkability, identifiability,
>      non-repudiation and others are to to be considered
>    * Also legal frameworks exist which demand for concepts like data
>      minimization (e.g., GDPR)
> 
>  * The Missing Element in the Room [Gabriele Lenzini (SnT/uni.lu)]
>    * The missing link for privacy to work is actual usability
>    * The missing element in the room is the average Internet user, which
>      is not able to use the tools which exist
>    * Real user has a persona that may be influenced
>    * Psychology models should be considered (it's not the right approach
>      to treat users as dummies).
>    * Q&A
>      * dkg
>        * Asks for examples of user interaction work integrated in network
>          protocols
>        * Supports statements of the presentation:
>          * Protocols should consider also the user; at the IETF we have
>            never traditionally done that
>          * Doesn't know how to move IETF towards UX considerations
>          * Expects a lot of pushback within the IETF
>        * Thinks pushback is wrong, but it is just a fact
>        * Asks for pointer to existing hooks that we could use out of
>          places like this
>      * Gabriele (response to dkg)
>        * Definitely from experients they have done, there are certain
>          guidelines
>        * For example interrupting the user's primary goal, going
>          somewhere with warnings asking him to a take a decision, has
>          proven to just bothering the user
>        * As he wants to reach his primary goal and he doesn't care about
>          whatever is in the middle
>        * Condiering UX in the protocal to be made a principle matter of
>          design
>        * E.g., move user decisions to policy (e.g., HSTS) are good move;
>          asking a user whether he/she trusts a web certificate was
>          unnecessary
>      * dkg
>        * Summarizes: the simplest answer is not to offer any explicit
>          controls to the user if you don’t have to
>      * Gabriele:
>        * If you do have to, you have to understand the psychology of the
>          user, in such a way you’re not imagining him in doing what you
>         want, but you consider that behavior as part of your system
> 
>  * Introduction to pEp [Hernani]
>    * Aim to make text communications (i.e., email, chat, ...) private by
>      default
>    * Most users are unable to use existing encryption tools like GnuPG
>      (properly)
>      * Need to fix this usability challenge by automation
>      * Not just “good”, but easy privacy
>    * The pEp architecture consists of several building blocks
>    * Existing RFCs are used whenever available (and usable)
>    * Some pieces are currently missing (or incomplete)
>    * pEp intends to document the missing pieces in the IETF
>    * Running Code: www.pep.software
> 
>  * Document Status
> 
>    * draft-birk-pep-03 [Bernie]
>      * Main document
>      * Handling of crypto is traditionally seen as difficult and hinders
>        widespread adoption
>      * Missing pieces for easy decentralized useable privacy
>      * Items relevant for all applications (email, chat, etc.)
> 
>    * draft-birk-pep-trustwords-03 [Bernie]
>      * IANA registration of Trustwords
>      * Mapping of hexadecimal stings to natural language words
>      * Public registration of trustwords in different languages
> 
>    * draft-marques-pep-handshake-02 [Bernie]
>      * Define easy authentication process for communication partners
>      * Establishing trust relationship based on public keys using
>        trustwords
> 
>    * draft-marques-pep-rating-01 [Bernie]
>      * Easy understandable representation of Privacy Status
>      * Description of different rating codes to inform a user on the
>        Privacy Status
> 
>    * draft-marques-pep-email-02 /
>      draft-luck-lamps-pep-header-protection-01 [Claudio]
>      * Define missing pieces for email
>      * Message Format 2 is wrapping messsages to be able to process those
>      * There are backward compatibility issues to be considered
> 
>    * Questions / Discussion
>      * Sara
>        * Wants to see what elements need more reasearch and shouldn't
>          initially be part of standardization process
>        * Need to look at the distinctions of the layers between pure
>          protocol specification, user interaction and usability; these
>          are three distinct areas that in some cases are quite overlapped
>          and that can possibly get better attention by being unpicked
>        * There are many protocols that are disguised here, not just email
>        * Parts that aren’t directly related to protocol specicifiactions
>          could move out to research
>        * Interested in a conversation what active research areas are in
>          place to work on
>        * Some of these elements could benefit from coming to for example
>          PEARG and then feed back for changes in the protocols
>        * It's fascinating work, it's pushing what we do at IETF, very
>          much, at bit of care in choosing where it gets done could lead
>          to much better reception of the work
>        * If it is framed in the right way, we could be more receptive to
>          it
>      * Bernie
>        * Proponents are open to dicuss this
>        * Invites to send a summary to the MEDUP mailing list for
>          discission, to better understand how we can address this matter
>      * dkg
>        * Fascinating large amount of work that is presented here
>        * In LAMPS mentioned the course of the deployed base; is the
>          fundamental problem we struggle here at IETF
>        * Even if we can get everybody to switch today, I still wanna read
>          my own mail, which don't adhere to that specification
>        * And we’re not getting everybody to switch, just because of the
>          deployed base
>        * Would be interested in thinking about what the usability issues
>          are and what the usability approaches are for dealing with
>          interoperability with non-compliant partners
>        * While we know what is the right thing to do for generation
>          [outgoing], and yet we are regularly obliged to consume
>          [incoming] non-compliant data
>        * That's a very tough question
>        * Wants to hear the general ideas about how to address that
>      * Hernani
>        * The pEp project has a lot of experience in the field
>        * Not yet clear how big the problem really is
>        * Most people aren't encrypting at all
>        * Far less than 1% actually use encryption at this time
>        * Interested of documenting these issues in general, maybe in
>          MEDUP
>        * Independent of pEp, as this affects all projects in this area,
>          including pEp or Autocrypt
>        * Invites particularly also Autocrypt folks to engage with MEDUP
>      * dkg
>        * Need to find anyone to catalog the most common ways email is
>          broken (observations and recommendations to go forward)
>      * Hernani
>        * MEDUP discussions should not be just about pEp
>        * Should be open for other approaches
> 
>      * Gabriele
>        * Rating draft: rating model should be multidimensional (not
>          linerar)
>      * Hernani
>        * pEp is open to change protocols [if there are better ways to
>          achieve the goals]
> 
>  * Open Issues [Bernie, Hernani]
>      * Will not discuss all issues on the slides due to time constraints
>      * Slide 1/5: Should the very 1st message (TOFU, no key avaialble for
>        encryption) be signed?
>        * What is the added value?
>        * Does it lead to false peception of security?
>        * Christian:
>          * Depends, sometime repudiation is wanted
>          * There might be a value for signing, e.g., sometimes signing
>            metadata may be needed (not the message itself)
>      * Slide 2/5: Trustwords, what is the best charset?
>        * ASCII 7bits, UTF-8, HTML-like encoding, IDNA, ...?
>        * Normalization of UTF-8 was proposed on the mailing list (similar
>          sounding words map to the same UTF-8 representation)
>        * [Discussion deviated and cut by chair due to time constraints]
> 
>  * Next Steps [chairs]
>    * pEp email I-D will be updated
>    * pEp key synchronization I-D is planned to be published
>    * Continue discussion on MEDUP mailing list
>    * Continue to hold non-WG meetings
>    * Request BoF when ready
> 
>  * Open Mic
> 
> 
> MEDUP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/medup