[Ndn-interest] NDN protocol principles: no privacy?

[Mark Stapp]

hmm - it seems like you and Tai-Lin are sort of conflating some things 
that are not necessarily entangled.

I think it would be good to make private communication the default - not 
the _only_ choice. I don't see how changing the default to 'private' 
does anything to compromise the network as a whole.

there may well be types of communication that _must_ be in the clear - 
you seem to be asserting that there would be some significant impairment 
to some kind of communication if it were to be forward-securely 
encrypted as I've described in other emails. maybe someone could offer 
some examples of the impairment that would occur? when I think about the 
things I do on the net on a day-to-day basis - the applications I use, 
the hosts I log in to, the websites I visit, etc. - I can't personally 
come up with an example of an application that works _worse_ since it 
switched from in-the-clear to TLS.

Thanks,
Mark

On 3/14/16 4:45 PM, Luca Muscariello wrote:
> To my understanding, principles are rules that are mutually exclusive
> and from which other rules can be derived.
>
> They are not axioms though. You can disagree.
>
> In the case of privacy, even if you run the network in such default
> mode, this cannot be a principle as I cannot derive non private
> communications from private communications unless I negate the
> principle. So  It's not a principle.
>
> Requiring security on data seems like a principle though as you can
> build on this to create private and non private communications.
>
> On Monday, 14 March 2016, Mark Stapp <mjs at cisco.com
> <mailto:mjs at cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     ok, but - my suggestion is that the _default_ should be private, not
>     that there should not be a way for an application to _ask_ for
>     non-private.
>
>     I'm hoping that the ongoing discussion will bring out some examples
>     of communication that folks think _belongs_ in-the-clear - where
>     some property of the application involved will be compromised if the
>     communication is strongly protected and confidential. I think that
>     it's going to be difficult to make much of a case there, given the
>     capabilities that well-designed applications offer in the current
>     internet, but it'd be interesting to hear the examples.
>
>     and ... I have to say that I don't understand the "principle of
>     universality", so ... I think that might be its own thread?
>
>     -- Mark
>
>     On 3/14/16 3:59 PM, Luca Muscariello wrote:
>
>         Imposing that all communications must be private is in contradiction
>         with the principle of universality as long as the network is
>         supposed to
>         carry any kind of application.
>
>         So I disagree that privacy is a principle.
>         Not all communications are private.
>
>         Luca
>
>