Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 02 June 2015 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8415D1B2FA9; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 vn9lB4uH3a0h; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7831B2FA7; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 630DFDA007D; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 18:13:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.192] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:13:49 -0700
References: <20150601164359.29999.35343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgRPFooA5fVFwvdprb3wPD+Y55pD+7RWjkACDv7T_TBW5Q@mail.gmail.com> <556DE0EF.2040809@isi.edu> <FE9A2408-555C-4B06-9009-D6C1D93356B4@nominum.com> <556DF072.4030202@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <556DF072.4030202@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <CF2B3B8C-FF99-4330-9DBB-D8B168002570@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:13:48 -0400
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0XkkLDJqeeo9HnH1_RyOEJzWxvw>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:13:50 -0000

On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2015 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>> Leaving out the have-nots - or those whose access is blocked by others
>>> when content cannot be scanned - isn't moving forward.
>> 
>> That would certainly be a problem if the consensus were not to
>> provide both a secure and an, as you call it, "open" version of all IETF documents.
> 
> The IETF is more than just the documents.
> All IETF content should be accessible via non-secure means.

Yes, I agree, and as I said I think that's the consensus.   What I mean by "IETF documents" is what you mean by "IETF content," and I apologize for my lack of clarity—I was not merely referring to RFCs and internet drafts.

That said, there's clearly some reason why you responded, I think to something that I said, by raising the concern that some public IETF content might not be accessible in this way.   So probably the right thing to do is figure out if you still think that someone is proposing a solution which would have that as its result, and if so, explain why you think that, since it likely means that some technical problem was overlooked either in what I said or what was said previously.