IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 10 August 2020 05:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7483A13F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.845
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 E91H7JiAX9c8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ACD483A13F2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 44052 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2020 05:30:38 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 10 Aug 2020 05:30:38 -0000
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20200809175214.GA3100@localhost> <DEC952F4-379C-4C97-8772-DA6C556A3AF1@strayalpha.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <6a6b5336-e782-93a7-7a61-fd3d38e82111@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 14:48:38 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DEC952F4-379C-4C97-8772-DA6C556A3AF1@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5TlFOW_uPAFxTgIbhy2KIJ1vnUU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:48:45 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>>   Really, asserting that "master secret"
>> is problematic is simply credibility-destroying.
> 
> Besides your concern, how does one secret actively control another?

As most people in US do not mind to play TRPGs with dungeon/game
masters, who control the games, why do we have to bother?
> Or is it just that there is one root key from which others are derived?

"master secret" is used by many RFCs as terminology of TLS.

							Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email