[Cryptography] FW: IAB Statement on Internet Confidentiality

Tom Mitchell mitch at niftyegg.com
Fri Nov 21 18:56:36 EST 2014

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:05 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Tom Mitchell <mitch at niftyegg.com> wrote:
> >> On a more serious note, the IAB statement below opens up a whole can of
> >> worms.
> >>
> >> 1. The vast bulk of the Internet protocols now and in the future already

> .....
> > If the goal is too large nothing will happen.
> >
> > Pick one service (like mail) and design a protocol that
> > can be used between hosts.


> Blah blah blah same old tired centralized intermediary smtp email
> services, lack of privacy/anonymity, and application of control/censorship.
> If the goal is not dreamily large enough and totally revolutionary,

I think we agree more than you think.
The large goal is to think big enough that the big boys will find value
and pull it internal where they have full control and then because
they have experience and knowledge know it works well enough to
open up and out to customers.

The small fry are not excluded.

Too large is in the class of IPV6 which is still on many to-do lists.
Yet the bigger the company the more they are working on and with
it internally.

Mail is bounded but still big enough  i.e. It does not include HTTP,  HTTPS,
FTP, NTP or all the other sub 1024 network ports.
Sub 1024 ports are interesting because in the early days
these ports were superuser only and the system manager
was the primary point of trust to limit abuse of them.   Today
a phone or tablet has more compute oomph than those systems
and the result is the sub 1024 no longer has the special place
they once had beyond being famous.

  T o m    M i t c h e l l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20141121/01de9b11/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list