Re: https at ietf.org

[[e-mail]]

> Subject: Re: https at ietf.org Date: Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:11:01PM -0800 Quoting Ned Freed ([e-mail]):
> > > Subject: Re: https at ietf.org Date: Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:52:45AM -0800 Quoting [e-mail] ([e-mail]):
> >
> > > > Encouraging the use of our work - our standards - is exactly the issue here.
> > > > You're trying to impose privacy requirements on a use-case where they simply
> > > > don't make sense.
> >
> > > Given this years revelations in the privacy field that is a statement I find slightly bold.
> >
> > You'll have to explain the connection then, because I don't see it. We're
> > talking about refusing to allow unprotected access to public standards
> > documents. That's the use-case in question; nothing else.

> Since it is perfectly innocent to perform this fetching, the Government(s)
> need not be privy to this -- and we should encrypt.

That's a strawman. Nobody has any problem with saying we SHOULD encrypt. The
problem I and others have is saying we MUST encrypt.

> The trust that the
> Government(s) will only tap the traffic of those that are a grave concern
> to their security interests has completely vanished.

That doesn't trump the need for access to our materials to be as open as
possible.

				Ned