Re: [HR-rt] [hrpc] [regext] Human Rights Review of draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 05 October 2018 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10481130DF6; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=b3QvNVfp; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=hCe7r9oc
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03oTUA3DH7MU; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 576CC130E10; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 05:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C34BF6A3; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:48:31 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1538743711; bh=GGGIWfz/elixIOTS4MFlLzlm7mHFX/3BQpjvgmqGJZU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=b3QvNVfpa7rbpWTvVxUfWNqLCflzQIhTa4K78/WHGc4yOZdj/ssDa9tzLHToubHzu J/6FM82KvEjGbTQwTu3hjs7MujV3oaJwxkyGX1Tl8vvCwSHioxl7WbphBQpM/A2V8l mN0bkWffwZX/0ndwgtfkKsd2tkn60SLT+tvZYVHw=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jkPrZOQnFNGH; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:48:30 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:48:29 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1538743710; bh=GGGIWfz/elixIOTS4MFlLzlm7mHFX/3BQpjvgmqGJZU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hCe7r9ocS8C/CJPpY3cPaRarsVA4PRi6o3F/6iClnYsuJLHQrplehYv87RrJl/h9B EfBJPWyfS91XqGU3kMxDtYJxr3XUrarDpzKU16zBVaU3cx51O3t0J/c61Wqj1H6COo oZb0l2iuRsYqi0SbstnXbkjEsgVTIYLreCcXT/tg=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>
Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org'" <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'hr-rt@irtf.org'" <hr-rt@irtf.org>, "'hrpc@irtf.org'" <hrpc@irtf.org>, "'regext@ietf.org'" <regext@ietf.org>, "'gurshabad@cis-india.org'" <gurshabad@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <20181005124829.4m3ydloqinhhz3dg@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <EE368E9F-E08F-4960-BC0D-88B94D66EF02@verisign.com> <20181003134215.GA23633@mir> <641561c1e0c94f93b45ff3c0809cea27@verisign.com> <b865e4c6-6d49-319f-9bea-2e7ecbefc7e1@digitaldissidents.org> <298864300d064f669a79ab84a942c3e3@verisign.com> <dd066886-caf9-e7a4-7019-7a5220070442@digitaldissidents.org> <a3729b92a6324e0b9e0ae2cc44c74fa9@verisign.com> <d47c4158-920f-b606-54ac-90ce01522ed4@digitaldissidents.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d47c4158-920f-b606-54ac-90ce01522ed4@digitaldissidents.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hr-rt/4o3S6Lv_OrnSAa5IsQtriVui20A>
Subject: Re: [HR-rt] [hrpc] [regext] Human Rights Review of draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode
X-BeenThere: hr-rt@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Review Team <hr-rt.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hr-rt/>
List-Post: <mailto:hr-rt@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:48:34 -0000

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 02:08:38PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:

> We might disagree here. If there is one place in which this extension
> might be useful, I am not sure whether standardization is appropriate
> because there is only one (potential) implementation. That leads me to
> the question: has this actually been implemented in the case of .gov?

On the other hand, if people want to standardize some mechanism for a
policy you find regrettable, I find it hard to believe that the right
answer is "prevent that standard" rather than "don't subject yourself
to that policy".  The latter is easily achieved by refusing to do
business with registries that implement a policy you don't like.  The
approach that seems to be being pursued here is to try to prevent
standardization of the mechanism because of a disagreement about the
policy.  I think that is generally bad for interoperability.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com