Re: Call for Adoption: Expect-CT

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 08 December 2016 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246A5129656 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pdr9G9U0Qi7B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F05F1129499 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cEqED-0005KV-Sh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:22:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:22:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cEqED-0005KV-Sh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cEqE6-0005Jf-Mk for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:22:34 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cEqE0-00022i-4h for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:22:29 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DD2222E1FA; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:22:03 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <d043b610-5e58-6cd1-2226-5a05af755535@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:01 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <01BF37AB-278D-4AD5-A648-C6E469602546@mnot.net>
References: <6B6FE4E1-D020-44B1-9F45-07202552E606@mnot.net> <d043b610-5e58-6cd1-2226-5a05af755535@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: =?utf-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.508, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cEqE0-00022i-4h 133169111cfb281fb6c4ca1fbadd86d1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Expect-CT
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/01BF37AB-278D-4AD5-A648-C6E469602546@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33128
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Martin,


> On 8 Dec. 2016, at 3:19 pm, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> Hello Mark,
> 
> On 2016/12/08 13:05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Again, there seemed to be strong support in Seoul, and now on the list, for adopting this draft:
>> 
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stark-expect-ct>
>> 
>> Please comment / express support on list.
> 
> I haven't been in Seoul, and haven't read the draft, sorry.
> 
> I just have a small procedural question:
> 
> Are you expecting everybody who already somehow expressed support to repeat that here?
> 
> Or are we going to accept the draft based on pre-existing support, and this is just a formality to give people who would be opposed a last chance?

More the latter. It's extremely helpful if people repeat the support they showed "in the room", but experience shows us that people are seldom inclined to do so.

And, to be clear, it's not a count of how many are "for" or "against" -- it's whether there are good technical arguments as to why we should not start work in these areas, or information that shows it might not be useful to do so (e.g., a lack of interested implementors).

> 
> Or something in between (and if so, what)?
> 
> And similar for the other drafts (where your wording is different, but not really clearer).

Likewise.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/