[tor-talk] Fwd: [Cryptography] traffic analysis -> let's write an RFC?

[grarpamp]

Relating to passive analysis, link/path padding, and crypto.
See the relavent threads in archive for further context.
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] traffic analysis -> let's write an RFC?
To: <cryptography at metzdowd.com>

If folks wanted to work on that RFC angle, I'd be delighted
to help out as I can.

I think that traffic analysis mitigation is the next big area
we need to start trying hard to work. So far, we've (IETF)
gotten general padding capabilities added to protocols (HTTP/2.0
for example, still in discussion for TLS1.3) on a case by
case basis, but we've not yet done anything systematic. I'd
love to see a WG chartered to try figure out how to most
effectively counter traffic analysis and then go write
protocol and/or BCPs as needed. (Speaking personally of
course, it'd require IETF consensus for that to happen
obviously.)

Pragmatically, it's very late for a BoF to happen at the
March IETF in Dallas. Deadline is Feb 6 for requests which
are mostly far more developed than one single email:-) But
if someone wanted to speak to the topic, we still have
space/time available in the agenda for the security area
meeting in Dallas. Ping me if you're interested and willing
and able to work on that.

Cheers,
S.