Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050817004329.0560c460@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:44:07 +0200
To: ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: WGLC security considerations
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 21:11 16/08/2005, Frank Ellermann said:
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > 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.

Dear Frank,
The specific risks due to the language tags are numerous. I will identify 
three of them:

- risk of confusion as they introduce non network related information where 
network related information is needed. This risk is structural and may 
substantially delay the architectural development of the Internet due to 
its probable support by dominant actors. I doubt the authors will document 
it. This is the main risk I fight in opposing their Draft.

- individual risks on content (filtering, censoring, etc.) and on persons 
(identification, privacy violation, etc.). This kind of risk is never 
absolute: it lies in its increase. There is a difference between sending an 
information on a post card and in a letter under envelope because opening 
all the envelopes costs time and money. Language tags greatly simplifies 
the intelligence gathering, filtering, spying, censoring ... and their 
errors. Not considering language tags in OPES context for example is big 
mistake. But the main issue is that the user cannot turn it down. (NB. This 
risks could have been greatly reduced through flexible "x-tags" and "0-" 
escape sequence. I have no doubt people will die and suffer because of  the 
ABNF. Standardisation is also a risky activity.)

- global risks. Let say the "9am-5pm" orientation of the Draft is well 
known and will be increasingly known. The irritation resulting from the 
limitations to cultural lifes and innovation all over the world this draft 
will lead to, and the probable impact on IANA and IETF image, may be a 
direct or indirect triggering factor in many nasty events to come (I am 
sure you do not need I dwell on that point). The chances of this risk have 
decreased. The ABNF rigidity against our Open Source/Standard proposition, 
the resulting delays in excluding us, the exposure of the commercial 
interests involved will most probably now lead the WSIS Internet Governance 
Forum to take over the issue.

A related risk would be that all this would delay a serious Internet 
Multilingual Framework. This is a matter on which we now actively work.
jfc




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru