with respect to the combined 'privacy and security' of Internet, I would
like to point to a problem I see growing recently in the Internet: more
and more I click on URLs that refuse to show me the content. The
'privacy and security' reasons of these refusals are the following:
In some countries, there is refusal to abide to legislation of other
countries with respect to 'privacy'. Namely, the site maintainers
disagree with displaying this 'Accept all cookies' proposals to end
users. If they displayed it I would have happily clicked on it, but
they dont. They do so (dont force users into selecting to accept
cookies or not), probably, because they want to protect the large
majority of their typical users which might be fed up with this 'Accept
all' button. That 'accept all cookies' button has its own security
risks, in that its meaning has been faked multiple times.
However, in doing so (refuse to offer option to accept cookies), and by
means of willingness to respect legislation of the country where the
person browsing is situated, they refuse access to that site altogether.
That is access refusal because of Privacy legislation and country
difference.
This is not normal in the Internet I knew before.
In recent months I encountered this situation a few times - I was denied
access to such URLs. I feel - it is just a feeling - that the number of
such sites might be growing. If so, this is not good.
The 'privacy and security' should not differentiate between groups of
end users depending on their countries. Moreover, 'privacy' is that
of an end user versus an Authority (like a gov't), and rarely between
end users themselves. Because consenting adults might expose much of
their privacy, independently of what an intermediary website wants to
allow them to accept or not. In that sense, a website refusing to abide
the Privacy rulemaking of another country does not really help with many
other well known privacy needs.
Privacy itself might be at loss all while access to information might be
at a loss at a same time.
Alex
Le 06/12/2021 à 14:21, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
Thanks for the reply, Tom.
I agree with you in the sense of updating the list, momentarily:
- make Internet to offer security for privacy for users.
- make Internet to be easy to use and offer a very high quality of
experience in terms of performance, reliability and availability.
- make sure the Internet does no harm.
- use shorter paths and not artificially-long paths like with VPN
gateways, video session rdv points. Use more direct communications
- accommodate more bandwidth: 10petabit/s for a link.
- reduce the number of overlays. Reduce the encapsulations, like
IPv6- in-IPv4 and others.
- make it easier to avoid address waste.
- promote Internet to space and inter-planetary.
Alex
Le 03/12/2021 à 17:14, Tom Herbert a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
- make sure the Internet does no harm.
- use shorter paths and not artificially-long paths like with VPN
gateways, video session rdv points. Use more direct
communications
- accommodate more bandwidth: 10petabit/s for a link.
- reduce the number of overlays. Reduce the encapsulations,
like IPv6- in-IPv4 and others.
- make it easier to avoid address waste.
- promote Internet to space and inter-planetary.
Security/privacy for users is not on your list? IMO that is the #1
priority and the other two in the top three requirements are
ease-of-use and quality of experience (performance, reliability,
availability, etc.).
Tom
Le 01/12/2021 à 09:52, Dirk Trossen a écrit :
Dear all,
Many thanks for those participating in the side meeting on
Internet addressing during the IETF 112 week. As suggested
during the meeting, we want to take various points of
discussion during the meeting onto the mailing list to
continue discussion here on possible ways forward.
Specifically, we wanted to come back on the issue that a larger
architectural discussion may be needed, a point that we make
towards the end of the GA
draft*//*(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-analysis/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-analysis/>),
but which was also core to Dirk K’s main point that only such
architecture discussion may lead to possibly needed changes to
addressing. We will be looking into such possibly larger
discussion along different possible avenues.
For our discussion here on the INT area list, we found Dino’s
related suggestion particularly useful in that we may need a
discussion on what we (as users) may want from a network. We
feel that our current GA draft may contribute to this question
by observing that the many extensions to Internet addressing
that we have gathered so far may be seen as an expression of a
desired feature that those proposing the extension may want to
see from the network. Hence, in addition to positioning those
extensions as identified gaps to Internet addressing, we may
want to formulate those extensions as desired features towards
an extended Internet system, not just addressing; this can be
done through suitably extending the GA draft with another
section.
Why is this useful? We think that such view provides an
observational input into the question that Dino suggests to
answer, which in turn links to the larger architectural
discussion that Dirk K suggests to have. While the overall
architectural discussion may (and likely will) touch on more
than ‘just’ addressing, we as a community may contribute to
the discussion by rationalizing the work that has been done in
this space.
We would like to solicit thoughts on this proposed way forward
as concrete steps for the community here on the list. Also,
anybody wanting to provide concrete input and contribution to
this proposed revision of the draft is more than welcome.
Best,
Dirk
(on behalf of the co-authors)
_______________________________________________ Int-area
mailing list Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing
list Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
