Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

[Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>]

Lucky Green writes:
>At 9:48 4/10/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>[...]
>>We know that governments would like to impose things like the Simple
>>Tax Transfer Protocol on the Net as well as Is A Person (and Is A Minor)
>>Protocols.
>
>There is one thing about the proposed minor flag addition to IP that I
>don't understand. [No, I am not surprised by this. Mandatory authorization
>to establish a connection and an "Internet Driver License", probably in the
>form or a smart card are coming].
>
>If my computer creates the IP packet, what is there to prevent me from
>modifying the value of the "Minor/Adult" flag at my leisure?

Yikes!  Don't lend it the credibility of calling it "proposed".
Someone might think you're serious.  "Suggested" is as far as I'd go.

Anyway, you computer creates the IP packet, but then sends it to your
ISP's router.  That router *always* makes changes to the packet header
because it must decrement the time-to-live field and recompute the
header checksum.  The ISP's router software would (in the scenario I
suggested, but deplore), based on to whom it's connected, set the
drivers licence flag as it sees fit.  When a PPP account of a "minor"
sends a packet, the router always inserts "minor".  When the account of
an adult sends it, it inserts "adult".  When the account of a partner
who has contractually accepted liability for the flag's setting sends a
packet, it leaves it alone.