Subject: [Ltru] WGLC security considerations

From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:57:14 +0200

The current text in security section says:

"Language tags used in content negotiation, like any other information 
exchanged on the Internet, might be a source of concern because they might 
be used to infer the nationality of the sender, and thus identify potential 
targets for surveillance."

The concern of security is only related in this text to the sending host - 
which is the least threat since it may be identified in many other ways. 
This text does not consider the intelligence which may be gathered on the 
receiver and the impact on the content.

I think the following text would be more appropriate:

"Language tags used in content negotiation, or in many other circumstances, 
like any other information exchanged on the Internet, might be a source of 
concern because they might be used to infer the nationality of the sender, 
the interest of the receiver, the nature of the content and thus identify, 
help select potential targets for surveillance, gather statistics, 
information and intelligence on users and community exchanges, censor 
contents, block access to information and knowledge, fight national 
cultures, in particular in using OPES, etc."

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:42:14 -0700

Hi -

This appears to be related to rejected issue issue tracker
(https://rt.psg.com/ user and password "ietf") issue #966.  Rather
than artificially re-opening the WG last call, I suggest that if the
poster believes strongly that this is important, it can be submitted
as an IETF last call comment.  In the meantime, the WG of course
is free to determine whether there is merit to this comment, in
order to minimize the time required to process the potential IETF
last call comment, if it is made.  That way, if necessary, we can
include an appropriate note to the IESG in our publication request.

Randy, ltru co-chair

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:57 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] WGLC security considerations
>

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:11:56 +0200

> I think the following text would be more appropriate:
[...]

The shorter version addresses the main issue more precisely.

Your longer proposal is too broad, it covers more than only
language tags, it's applicable to most kinds of information
exchange.

Putting vague threats related to many kinds of communication
- not only language tags - in the "security considerations"
would be a bad idea.  We were supposed to identify _specific_
risks. not _general_ issues.
                              Bye, Frank

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:25:37 +0900

(chair hat off)

 >The shorter version addresses the main issue more precisely.

I completely agree.

 >risks. not _general_ issues.

I agree again.

Regards,    Martin.