Subject: [privacydir] getting things started

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:04:08 -0500

Everyone,

Thanks for agreeing to be in this directorate.  The purpose is twofold:

1. Provide a place to discuss the Privacy Considerations for Internet 
Protocols draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morris-privacy-considerations/)

2. Test out the recommendations in that draft by reviewing selected drafts.

Most that I talked to about this directorate liked the idea that it 
would be modeled on the security directorate.  To do that we'll need a 
secretary to review the upcoming IESG telechat agenda 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/), select drafts to 
review, and assign drafts to reviewers.  What that means is that we'll 
actually need people to review drafts and send their comments to the 
directorate. The workload will, I think, at most be one draft a month 
per person. Now there are only 15 or so, but we've had 30 requests to 
join the directorate.  So, the workload could actually drop.

I've gotten at least one recommendation for a secretary and Tim and I 
will see if they'd be game.  I suspect the assignment process will 
happen by generating the list of directorate reviewers and then just 
working through the list.

Tim and I had picked out two drafts that seemed bang on appropriate for 
the directorate to review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie/

and

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-anon/

Tim and I both have some initial comments on the httpstate-cookie draft. 
You can see them by clicking on the IESG evaluation tab in he 
datatracker.  If you think we've missed something please send email to 
this list.

Nick Mathewson provided Tim and I with some comments on the ipfix-anon 
draft which I will forward shortly to the mailing list.

Cheers,

spt

---

From: Deirdre Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:58:48 -0800

Hi Sean et al
Can you tell me what the timeline is on the two below?
I am happy to take on some of the evaluation work under 2 and will plan 
to work it into a lab class I am running this semester looking at policy 
implications of technical design.

On topic 1, I would suggest that we think about other models--both 
decisional documents, expert committees, etc. -- in addition to the 
morris draft for iding and working through privacy issues in drafts.

thanks and happy new year.
cheers
deirdre

On 1/5/11 6:04 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
> will see if they'd be game. I suspect the assignment process will happen
> by generating the list of directorate reviewers and then just working
> through the list.
>
> _______________________________________________
> privacydir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/privacydir

-- 
Deirdre K. Mulligan

Assistant Professor

School of Information

UC Berkeley

[email-masked]

510.642.0499

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:15:21 -0500

The two drafts below were on yesterday's IESG telechat.

For the ipfix-anon draft, I submitted Nick's comments pretty much in 
their entirety.  I haven't heard from the authors.  There's essentially 
still time if somebody uncovers something horrible.  The time frame for 
anything on that draft is at best two weeks.

For the cookie draft, time is short - actually technically it's over 
because IETF LC ended a while ago.  The author is very responsive too. 
If you've got any comments I need them as soon as possible and 
unfortunately there's no guarantee the author will incorporate them.

This just goes to show we need a secretary to ride herd on us.

spt

---

From: "Polk, William T." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:08:26 -0500

Hi Deirdre,

There is no fixed timeline on any of this - this is more of an experiment.  We can't take more concrete steps, like a BCP that adds privacy considerations to the required scope of Security Considerations, until we build rough consensus that the experiment worked.  There are certainly other holes to fill, but Sean and I see this as the low hanging fruit in the frighteningly complex privacy space.

It is probably premature to move on to decisional documents (BCPs and standards track specifications).  Design teams to develop the initial drafts is an excellent idea, and will certainly be considered.  In the end, we will still need to build IETF-wide consensus, though.  At this stage, I suspect the community is more likely to support experimental documents.

We would be happy to have input from your students... identifying drafts that have security implications and evaluating the impact is critical to the success of the experiment.  We would prefer to have their input funneled through you and your colleague, though.  We are being pretty ruthless about limiting subscribers to the core team right now.

Thanks,

Tim Polk

On 1/6/11 1:58 PM, "Deirdre Mulligan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Sean et al

--
Deirdre K. Mulligan

Assistant Professor

School of Information

UC Berkeley

[email-masked]

510.642.0499

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:38:57 +0000

Sean,

I took a look at this draft (which I meant to do during IETF last call  
and unfortunately didn't get to) and both your and Tim's DISCUSSes. I  
think the privacy points that you raise are spot-on; I have just a  
couple of further thoughts:

-- I think it makes sense to make some recommendation on limiting  
cookie lifetimes. One way to do it without picking a number would be  
to say that cookies should be set to expire when they are no longer  
needed by the server for the purpose for which they were set. That way  
a limit is recommended but it's still fungible. It might also make  
sense to recommend that cookies lifetimes be reasonable given the  
expected lifetime of browsers and devices (i.e., a 30-year lifetime  
makes no sense when people cycle through devices every year or couple  
of years).

-- It's my understanding that most private browsing modes prevent  
third-party cookies from being read and treat all newly set cookies as  
session cookies (see http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/ 
20101209_browser_rpt.pdf page 9). So I think this is actually covered  
by the text in 7.2.

Does it make sense for you to convey these comments to Adam, or should  
I post them to the http-state list?

Alissa

On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Sean Turner wrote:

> their entirety.  I haven't heard from the authors.  There's  
> essentially still time if somebody uncovers something horrible.  The  
> time frame for anything on that draft is at best two weeks.
>
> because IETF LC ended a while ago.  The author is very responsive  
> too. If you've got any comments I need them as soon as possible and  
>>> happen

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:19:08 -0500

I'm perfectly happy having you send them directly to Adam.

spt

On 1/13/11 5:38 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> -- I think it makes sense to make some recommendation on limiting cookie
> lifetimes. One way to do it without picking a number would be to say
> that cookies should be set to expire when they are no longer needed by
> the server for the purpose for which they were set. That way a limit is
> recommended but it's still fungible. It might also make sense to
> recommend that cookies lifetimes be reasonable given the expected
> lifetime of browsers and devices (i.e., a 30-year lifetime makes no
> sense when people cycle through devices every year or couple of years).
>
> session cookies (see http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/20101209_browser_rpt.pdf
> page 9). So I think this is actually covered by the text in 7.2.
>
> Does it make sense for you to convey these comments to Adam, or should I
> post them to the http-state list?
>
> Alissa
>