Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 14 October 2020 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55653A100F for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qkTWo3B7YlI4 for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E5DE3A0FD5 for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h4so389629pjk.0 for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Iu4Utb/fd1QMJQKji06vMdw09hqs1Xo0wmVZZJ53BVY=; b=JUlg2wrlGlqveXzJ+9iztrLwa4CsdPpKQH0tzl7CGDOZHCZSRma8yvqTJbZRzTnRQy wpfOHjxrB1tqKUFlcoQZoBUidmXGH9BxOMHOY9TpeYlNwuOycWstk1pKZTKCaL2irsIx 5EY1026R8UcXhkpii+53kl9Xhv3I5THSpJD3JkoEl3hxm7dSNfqGIHESlJNR6iAp4IBN XPRki4HS56VFJC/AnjVXH5QxNY/goGkNEKeWEwhPZETE18ZoMVfA8697lZeE/0tYLsDa o0bDhqIE3og3P59rFLOLsYDX1yHcU0oeiGCVSCz9XwXLu5BWhT62nlTkt8EeMcqU9Uo+ LJ7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Iu4Utb/fd1QMJQKji06vMdw09hqs1Xo0wmVZZJ53BVY=; b=javVHMquK67tlkwcN808jleyaJkwUNghn35BHz7Nb67czlsEls5YtV7k4aegLzsUgy 9RGX2DoQcYKdCet8pJJuSkIvNVF8atcvpMW2ygYY0PyZQ5we7xmRjCd1N0Uqeg0ioO5c BTRLQnLNJgBnOHqQnRtWDNgcqN8f0WU8vYrTElm4V60zo1CgwVJC+AQeAGeZrueMYxZX fD0vHMbb0HCEC4i+mTfUbyESXEjAZKwSsHgDEjIpFIB0R/zF4i8qlmGg4DoRorQpxOle LijbI2pKQALUdqghnGRZMb83buR4aMP8IxciAfC0PFwJHeFtBZW46z27vEiDa9apH/N4 8tDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ob7DZm/oSOBle482TjQeB8A5SmCsLI3KNCohd59MyrS9R5uz7 vVU+Tj9hawZo8KFgoA01UeIivVm3oqiJWA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjfbT+FQ+GtqhHTxYRuJH6m765Pv9E/Egmcb8FRJ5Bv/ixXaw246sLt/KdiLPPGhCiWoppAw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4189:: with SMTP id hh9mr778121pjb.199.1602705515396; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id g4sm403235pgj.15.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: Andrew Campling <>
Cc: Christian Huitema <>, Stewart Bryant <>, Stephen Farrell <>, John C Klensin <>, "" <>
References: <> <975E28FE326C22E8CD32DCC8@PSB> <> <LO2P265MB05736C784B36942C7ECF71ECC2070@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB0573F23F5C23ABD3933E49FDC2040@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB05732E22C376062F808746E3C2050@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:58:30 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB05732E22C376062F808746E3C2050@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:58:39 -0000


On 14-Oct-20 23:41, Andrew Campling wrote:
>  In addition, I challenge the presumption that the IETF is the only body able to make such a determination about these matters and that it can and should do so without undertaking full consultation with other stakeholders.

I for one make no such presumption. But we have never made that claim. The claim we've made is that we know how to make *our* protocols secure against inspection or forgery by 3rd parties, and that it's our job to do so.

When we try to go wider than that, we fail. I am not very sympathetic to "a true multi-stakeholder consultation process as suggested by the IAB’s RFC 8890". The IETF is not in any way a suitable vehicle for that kind of process, as anyway who remembers WGIG/WSIS is well aware.