Subject: re: [Raven] Fly away, raven

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:53:32 -0400

Brian Rosen wrote:

> This debate is, of course, fairly unusual.

and

> If we can, for "moral" reasons, have one group telling any other
> group in the IETF that they can't do something, where do you
> draw the line?

The original posting opening up the Raven list contained the following
statement

> A number of IETF working groups are currently working on protocols to
support telephony over IP networks.  > The wiretap question has come up in
one of these working groups, but the IESG has concluded that the
> general questions should be discussed, and conclusions reached, by the
entire IETF, not just one WG.

So you are right, this is unusual, and the IESG did in fact open up the
discussion to more than the usual participants. I do not know enough about
how the IESG works to comment on where the line gets drawn, but I suspect
the issue was something like the following:

1) There are working groups trying to develop secure protocols;

2) Wiretap support can be viewed as a deliberate attempt to build an
insecure protocol;

3) Can these things coexist in any reasonable way, or does success at 1)
preclude success at 2)? Worse yet, does success at 2) undermine what all the
people in 1) thought they had achieved?

I suspect that the moral issue (which you put in scare quotes for some
reason) also weighed, at least subconsciously, in the IESG's desire to make
sure that the whole IETF, rather than just MEGACO, was fully apprised of
what was going on. I seriously doubt it was the only reason, however.

Any IESG members care to comment on accuracy of my guesses?

Richard Payne

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:07:26 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>

> 	[..]
> > LEA could still use your protocol.
>
> I haven't proposed a protocol. I've been proposing requirements
> that the IESG might impose on protocol designers. You're
> still thinking of someone else.

Do I really need to be legalistic, start writing "LEA could still use any
and all protocols that satisfy any restruction similar to or identical to
the restriction proposed by Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>"
and continue for a few 100 more words?

If you cannot find a way to handle the problems in your proposal of having
IETF working groups produce standards that would be both in practice and
by intention completely useless to their official customers, wouldn't it
be better to just stop arguing the point?

The idea of having the IETF sanction useless tapping standards is cute,
but like most cute ideas, it's not a good candidate for implementation.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:51:12 -0400 (EDT)

> I'm working on the premise that at least one vendor's representatives
> have lobbied the IESG for this sort of spec.

then you are working under a false premise - the announcement
message said exactly what happened - nothing has been hidden

Scott