Subject: Thoughts from IETF-92

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:40:36 +0300

Thank you all for a wonderful meeting. I wanted to thank all the sponsors and participants, and our host Google for their support. And the wonderful social event. Well done, you all!

Here are some thoughts from me and Dan York, as the meeting ended: https://www.youtube.com/embed/R2G5eLkX1BM

What are your thoughts? What were the important things coming out of the meeting for you? What can we do better next time? Are there new things that we should start to work on?

Jari Arkko, IETF Chair

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:55:32 -0400

1.  You need a bigger room for talks.  The session on Open Source was over
subscribed to say the least. I just walked away.

2. We need to be more accommodating to public policy folks and National
Regulatory Authorities.   Maybe ISOC needs to work on that. Some of us
have tried we get nowhere.

 We had a charming incident in some of the RAI WG¹s last week.

RAI had three distinct sessions dealing with highly sensitive public
policy problems with SIP. DISPATCH w/CNIT, the MODERN bof and STIR. Guess
who shows up.

https://consumersunion.org/end-robocalls

Needless to say they were met with open arms if not some polite bemusement
and they collected a pile of contacts etc including mine.

The CU folks told us that this is the NUMBER 1 issue their members
complain about. Yes it is our problem because we define SIP.

I can speak with some authority that the NRA's are very very concerned
about a lot of protocol issues re real time communications and a whole lot
more like Net Neutrality.  We (ISOC?) are not doing the proper outreach.
We are not being helpful.

‹ 
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683

On 3/30/15, 4:40 PM, "IETF Chair" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Thank you all for a wonderful meeting. I wanted to thank all the sponsors
>and participants, and our host Google for their support. And the
>wonderful social event. Well done, you all!
>
>Here are some thoughts from me and Dan York, as the meeting ended:
>https://www.youtube.com/embed/R2G5eLkX1BM
>
>What are your thoughts? What were the important things coming out of the
>meeting for you? What can we do better next time? Are there new things
>that we should start to work on?
>
>Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:06:40 -0700

> have tried we get nowhere.

\
Richard,

In concrete terms, what does this mean?  Within the bounds of our
skillsets and time and deliverables, what should the IETF and
participants /do/ to accommodate policy folk?

ISOC has done quite a bit to provide tutorials and tour guides for quite
a few folk that I thought were policy-based.

Not to say there isn't more to do, but I've no idea what.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:45:13 +1300

> participants /do/ to accommodate policy folk?

And also, what should we *not* do? We decided many years ago, for example,
that we should *not* weaken security to accommodate public policy. I'm sure
there are other things in that category, e.g. we should *not* stop work on
quality of service to accommodate naive "network neutrality" rules.

    Brian

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:20:43 -0400

Thank you Dave excellent question.  Actionable items.

1.  Look at our schedule.  We are going to Prague. It would be most
fitting and proper for ISOC to sponsor a limited number of free passes to
the IETF meetings to the Czech telecom regulators. That could be easily be
arranged.  Why should the ITU have all the fun.

We should offer something to all of Latin America¹s regulators if we are
going to Argentina!  If it Montreal why not invite the Prime Minister to
keynote ..depending on who that is.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/home-accueil.htm

http://www.ctu.eu/main.php?pageid=178

That could be easily be done for all future meetings simple out reach. Yes
we are a big deal. 

We have to accept the reality that if we are going to run the protocols
for the communications network for the entire planet we have to explain
ourselves.

2. Public policy advocates.. A bit tricker but still the same principal.
If Consumers Union could figure out how to find us to deal with Caller ID
spoofing in Dallas then lets find them on security privacy issues.  Again
my issue with ISOC. Outreach is what they are charged to do so let them
bring people to the table to see what real multi stakeholder consensus is
about. 

I thought the CU folks were wonderful BTW.

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:48:48 -0400

>quality of service to accommodate naive "network neutrality" rules.

Excellent question. We should not waver from our core principals of rough
consensus and running code but lets face facts we are now what what we
have always feared.  We are ITU-T or at least we act like it. Its our
store now. 

That said ³with great power comes great responsibility²  We have gone down
this road before with RFC 2804 and wiretapping on the policy side.
Congestion control is a central problem. IMHO its insane that the US FCC
is trying to define packet loss as a metric for defining network
performance etc. There are idiots that believe all packets containing cat
videos are created equal but we know better. That is the larger issue we
confront.

I do not have all the answers here needless to say.

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:10:48 +0000

> On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Richard Shockey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Be careful what you wish for. You may discover that you already have it.

ISOC brings on the order of 12-15 “policy fellows” to IETF meetings regularly, introduces them to the IETF, and has a series of talks given by technical folks to help them understand the Internet better. I suspect that the thing most of them walk away with is the business cards of a few people they think might be able to answer questions for them in the future, and the fact that we don’t bite - at least not outsiders.

And yes, I suspect they will do so in Prague, Yokohama, Buenos Aires, and in the meetings that follow.

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:10:43 +0000

> On Mar 30, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Richard Shockey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I spoke with one of them in the lobby Saturday morning. I explained how what she was calling for was a global (federated?) PKI, and she wasn’t likely to achieve her goal without one.

That it wasn’t a protocol problem, as we have the protocols and protocol support for it. All it takes is money.

Hmmm.

---

From: Christian de Larrinaga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:41:53 +0100

Richard Shockey wrote:
> There are idiots that believe all packets containing cat

Your broader point getting senior poitico's in a region to engage at a
high level such as open meetings and hold round table discussions
bringing their policy advisors with IETF / IAB is a good one.

ISOC and IETF did some good work during the last London meeting but it
didn't work closely enough with the chapter in setting up meetings so I
can't really say if the opportunities - which were numerous - were
nailed. There has been no follow up project from either ISOC or IETF
with us since which is perhaps more significant.

With strong IETF participation I organised a Parliamentary level meeting
on Surveillance / pervasive monitoring issues at the London meeting but
the broader challenges for network infrastructures around filtering,
weakening encryption, and systemic failure to engage with IPv6 remain
challenging to convey into policy. There needs to be a longer range
commitment to keep at these issues or we end up with well meaning but
scattered and uncoordinated initiatives that help communicate a point or
two but can't shift the climate.

The web community have been much more successful in getting their
message across. It is a truism perhaps but policy is focussed on what it
can see in terms of deliverables and that is easier to dress in a
browser metaphor than in a packet.

But that emphasis is more engaged with issues such as open data, open
source, and presentation of government services to achieve generational
opportunity for savings. The promise of tangible rewards has opened up
significant funding sources to the web communities, deservingly.

The other policy area that has taken significant time has been in the
"governance" area such as the various ITU meetings particularly in the
run up to Dubai and since, the Net Mundial, WEF, and the pervasive noise
around NTIA transitioning its IANA role and of course the long running
challenge of what to do through the IGF.

What I am saying I suppose is that there are a lot of threads in the
policy space and complexity is not just in the technical demarcations
between subject matter areas but in who to engage with and the level of
clue and opinion and interests on all sides.

This work really does need commitment across our communities to support it.

But if one starts off by saying "idiots ...." because they don't get
"xxx " then you are really saying you don't get why they think "yyy".

In some senses that may be the larger challenge. I am not saying you are
wrong about the analysis but that it is not a policy objective or
analysis that is usable.

In policy terms we face realities such as my cat won't tolerate other
cats. When she purrs she is convinced she has priority, because she has
the loudest yowl in the neighbourhood. I haven't dared broach the
existence of dogs.

best

Christian

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:43:17 -0400

Hi,

> have tried we get nowhere.

I'll note ISOC already does in fact do that (see Fred's message
elsewhere in this thread).  But also,

> and they collected a pile of contacts etc including mine.

from what I observed, that interaction looked like a successful one.
That is, we had some public policy people who came to the mic and
asked some questions about how everything worked, when they could
expect something, and so on, and they got besieged by people who know
the topic and want to help them.  Why do you think that event was
evidence of failure to help?  It looked like helping to me.

Best regards,

A (for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:07:24 +0100

> On 31 Mar 2015, at 12:43, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> elsewhere in this thread).

Indeed. Brochureware is here: http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/ietf-and-ois-programmes/internet-society-fellowship-5

Mat

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:09:48 +0200

> What are your thoughts? What were the important things coming out of the meeting for you? What can we do better next time? Are there new things that we should start to work on?

We can do better in telling the secretariat just how good they are!

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:57:42 -0400

I know .. SIDR has proven that but you have to start somewhere.

On 3/31/15, 3:10 AM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I spoke with one of them in the lobby Saturday morning. I explained how
>what she was calling for was a global (federated?) PKI, and she wasn¹t
>likely to achieve her goal without one.
>
>That it wasn¹t a protocol problem, as we have the protocols and protocol
>support for it. All it takes is money.
>
>Hmmm.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:37:53 -0400

> That it wasn’t a protocol problem, as we have the protocols and protocol support for it. All it takes is money.

All it takes is a business model. The business model for the TLS
WebPKi works fine because people will pay money up front to be able to
take credit cards for payment. Even in the earliest e-commerce days,
the reward was commensurate with the cost.

The business model for S/MIME did not work out because even though
most folk would probably pay $10/yr for an email PKI that lets them
communicate securely with almost anyone, $10/yr to pay to communicate
with the other folk willing to pay for a network with a 0.1% market
share (at best) is much too high.

I think that it is actually quite practical to establish an 'organic'
PKI that could meet the CU requirements.

What I would do is to align cost and benefit by making certificate
registration free and then establish a business that charges people
for telling them if an incoming call is likely to be junk or not. this
model has been validated in DKIM email. Signing your mail with DKIM is
free, having someone tell you what is legit and what is spam is the
bit that costs.

We already have most of the specs. SIP can use certs and we can enroll
the certs in a TRANS type log. The principal obstacle is the lack of
open hardware that can connect up to the telephone devices and perform
the necessary functions.

I think the telcos had better get their act together soon and fix
this. I still have a landline at the moment but it isn't going to be
in the house very long if I continue to get six interruptions a day
from scam artistes.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:58:41 -0500

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 07:10:43AM +0000, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> I spoke with one of them in the lobby Saturday morning. I explained
> how what she was calling for was a global (federated?) PKI, and she
> wasn’t likely to achieve her goal without one.

How did that go over?

Was she more interested in authenticating services or users?  (or both?)

But you know, we have a global, federated PKI: it's called DNSSEC.

> That it wasn’t a protocol problem, as we have the protocols and
> protocol support for it. All it takes is money.

Eh?  Money is probably not the most-needed thing.  A PKIX global
federated PKI would depend on various things, of which IMO the biggest
are:

 - Universal name constraints deployment (hah)

   Oh, I suppose money would help here.

and

 - Partitioning of the namespace so that relatively few CAs could vouch
   for any given name, and where such CAs coordinate with each other to
   prevent take-overs (as with DNS, where a zone might have multiple
   registrars, but with a single registry for a TLD).

   This probably means having registries and registrars, as in DNS.

   This requires more than money.  It requires will.  But..

...The thought occurs that one might as well use DNSSEC if what one
wants is a global, federated PKI.

Of course, using DNSSEC as a PKI does involve solving a variety of
[lesser, IMO] problems (last-mile issues, DANE for more protocols).

Nico
--