Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Sat, 06 December 2014 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
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 394FF1A1B68 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:37:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Ohd2E528Jg4W for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB8B1A1B5B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id i138so1999121oig.22 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:37:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j+l6Srl5BYQPz0DeS3VEb6x8FxvGXr6oj63HSjg2+co=; b=fxVMNWfksgW30p+fTzWpSyjaHlWrWPEYX4qc/MMkEB0TqUkmfUP4MUxGrkZzyK5slZ 0pCDsoGCUl6jtQIuRGoqMcjXV3e+jp5P3aW16JOhlrGo7e554bkx/iW61EwsaVpIyIpi qEfNOPFXFA7sbHCuDT9CXv8AJtO+m2NWRvl9A=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=j+l6Srl5BYQPz0DeS3VEb6x8FxvGXr6oj63HSjg2+co=; b=QOFI3o82mwgO9on4zIbuL2qhD/pxF/fZ73yTx0zIMCuSWpom2+6Vh1Hmk6lFxha/jZ hefUvOxKHChYByF0C1kfA+8wdODBzdoMVx997oW7jb55qIxNEynxh1Cx2n7OwcoOq93K 8+JFqTbIiBecnBUMavZB00QEaAXQpe1ZcXItvZUCsP88J2fwKeZtXoYWtOlAFKsyrezV Ba3eT5mhI26GfiAPoVNkI0eX/wCQMrTBNMeyRxHK+nnDVj4fRgkWLTs7iJluxoh0xvO0 MydR0AYv4iKZ8KugljzIEAUUXEi6B3iHDmboR+CcSmAVUKSN5eqQ8sFuyy7zLDL4yDhy jXQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnaSvZbBO4xjH1m/LNdm08UEMfxwgYwtJpEd9WXN7TIvTx8xMZJOOH6PsVnw88EE6cxMoXk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.181.213 with SMTP id e204mr2581969oif.117.1417909065295; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.227.199 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:37:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <DB4PR06MB45772E3E0C538536D64DD1EAD660@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20141206170611.39377.qmail@ary.lan> <54833B14.7010104@cs.tcd.ie> <D1B5A541041D2171FB90DA03@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <DB4PR06MB45707BD36E5FE5154EC0021AD660@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <935E87BD05D6090238E6FD68@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <DB4PR06MB45772E3E0C538536D64DD1EAD660@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:37:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxHdxScDpCSSNS3G+dS9HA1b7va5DpMH92S06T=GM6YSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cd1ac2944a3050994ae6f
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1QDlOwUi1OhXq5dPEkeapnRv4s0
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:37:48 -0000

On 6 December 2014 at 22:49, <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:

> Security pedants might wonder why there is no easy way to authenticate
> electronic copies of RFCs, given the vast array of security-related
> protocols that the IETF has defined. How can I check the integrity of an
> RFC document and that it hasn't been tampered with? I imagine an MD5sum
> just won't do.
>

All the copies I'm reading are properly signed, according to RFC 4637. If
yours aren't, maybe they *have* been tampered with.

Dave.