For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread.
I’m happy to consider RFC1149 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt for our purposes here, however even carrier pidgeons recommend encryption Security Considerations Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment [cid:CFFF89B3-BF80-4605-B46A-725B0D20E6A4] Always willing to come to a compromise =) -James Gannon From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Don M. Blumenthal" Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 16:24 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread.
Are we going to allow these pigeons to remain anonymous? Shouldn't we require them to disclose their identities -- particularly if they are selling communication services to the public? As you all surely know, a lot of them are just fly-by-night businesses. John Horton President and CEO, LegitScript *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I’m happy to consider RFC1149 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt for our purposes here, however even carrier pidgeons recommend encryption
Security Considerations
Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment
Always willing to come to a compromise =)
-James Gannon From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Don M. Blumenthal" Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 16:24 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction
For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option.
I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Well according to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549 RFC2549 there are some privacy concerns with certain pigeon types, I think we will have to start a subgroup to assess that John. I am sure that the NCSG will fight for the rights of all users, we don’t discriminate on the basis of featheryness. -James ‘squawk' Gannon From: John Horton Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 17:09 To: James Gannon Cc: "Don M. Blumenthal", PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction Are we going to allow these pigeons to remain anonymous? Shouldn't we require them to disclose their identities -- particularly if they are selling communication services to the public? As you all surely know, a lot of them are just fly-by-night businesses. John Horton President and CEO, LegitScript Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com> | Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: I’m happy to consider RFC1149 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt for our purposes here, however even carrier pidgeons recommend encryption Security Considerations Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment [cid:CFFF89B3-BF80-4605-B46A-725B0D20E6A4] Always willing to come to a compromise =) -James Gannon From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Don M. Blumenthal" Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 16:24 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
No idea of the context, but here's a great story about the skeleton of a carrier pigeon (message still attached) found during restoration of a home in Surrey. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226203/Skeleton-hero-World-War-II-c... Looks like I picked the wrong week to miss a PPSAI call. J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of John Horton <john.horton@legitscript.com<mailto:john.horton@legitscript.com>> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 11:09 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction Are we going to allow these pigeons to remain anonymous? Shouldn't we require them to disclose their identities -- particularly if they are selling communication services to the public? As you all surely know, a lot of them are just fly-by-night businesses. John Horton President and CEO, LegitScript Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com> | Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: I'm happy to consider RFC1149 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt for our purposes here, however even carrier pidgeons recommend encryption Security Considerations Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment [cid:CFFF89B3-BF80-4605-B46A-725B0D20E6A4] Always willing to come to a compromise =) -James Gannon From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Don M. Blumenthal" Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 16:24 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction For this morning's callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I'm glad that I reread. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
But remember it was encoded first ;) So falling into enemy hands would not have helped. Now you could argue the time it might take the complainer to decipher the code could be construed as being outside of the "within a timely manner" - but the wording, at least the way I read it does not require us to provide a cipher though, so... Kind regards, Chris From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> To: "John Horton" <john.horton@legitscript.com>, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 29 September, 2015 18:09:49 Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction No idea of the context, but here’s a great story about the skeleton of a carrier pigeon (message still attached) found during restoration of a home in Surrey. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226203/Skeleton-hero-World-War-II-c... Looks like I picked the wrong week to miss a PPSAI call. J. From: < gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of John Horton < john.horton@legitscript.com > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 11:09 To: James Gannon < james@cyberinvasion.net > Cc: PPSAI WG < gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction Are we going to allow these pigeons to remain anonymous? Shouldn't we require them to disclose their identities -- particularly if they are selling communication services to the public? As you all surely know, a lot of them are just fly-by-night businesses. John Horton President and CEO, LegitScript Follow Legit Script : LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Blog | Google+ On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, James Gannon < james@cyberinvasion.net > wrote: I’m happy to consider RFC1149 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt for our purposes here, however even carrier pidgeons recommend encryption BQ_BEGIN Security Considerations Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment Always willing to come to a compromise =) -James Gannon From: < gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of "Don M. Blumenthal" Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 16:24 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg BQ_END _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Well RFC1149 was sort of superseded by RFC2549: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549 And of course RFC6214 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6214.txt is worth considering -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 17:04 To: Don Blumenthal, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction I’m happy to consider RFC1149 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt for our purposes here, however even carrier pidgeons recommend encryption Security Considerations Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment [cid:CFFF89B3-BF80-4605-B46A-725B0D20E6A4] Always willing to come to a compromise =) -James Gannon From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Don M. Blumenthal" Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 16:24 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread.
participants (6)
-
Chris Pelling -
Don M. Blumenthal -
James Gannon -
James M. Bladel -
John Horton -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight