Re: Security for various IETF services

Hector Santos <> Sat, 05 April 2014 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7914A1A044C for <>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 06:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4d1W3ChDAmx0 for <>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 06:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C571A0428 for <>; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 06:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1540; t=1396704085; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=iZIBFKSu/+2MgKq5yJdiF1i7uNk=; b=O5+Qio5iAESO6WJUeCUA SqqNuby+ckaABlonLNNuUZ0tsFXPzvhiPqsED79+b2Ji8X8HC1GX1Uvvqv9HedxI i9b4F5hnodFh6JVLalwJngMppECrME9SRAq1pwpZQLNoHvsAg0mUz8MpK0lDWQwO nNm9uf+OBRAbIPjNmzNWClc=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 08:21:25 -0500
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; adsp=pass policy=all;
Received: from ( []) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 1691539660.604.4468; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 08:21:23 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1540; t=1396704032; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=AmNxw9H +CPtDwMgzHYpOZWhcgZnhpaTcBXTW2Diigjk=; b=zY7ZUuWoXO4N94Bq5ZGLCEY 6ecH4ZK04cAo+iD5ciBa9oIGf/Vu8dd6lw9f9/HuEPqf3BKO4JDBPKqvg1v06Zay eMEorF5SF8ODYe7X6y0k34yIYwoLXVgnY3xSLYkRWA89b4TXAJTQcgJdleIaTnvB ekWXV6cpgQW9sQFHVNDg=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:20:32 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 1137788819.9.16568; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:20:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:21:25 -0400
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dick Franks <>
Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF-Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:21:39 -0000

On 4/4/2014 4:12 PM, Dick Franks wrote:
>        Stephen asked about the last sentence:
>        New services will however generally only be made
>        available in ways that use security protocols such as
>        TLS.
> Which to my eye looks like a conclusion;  without shred of
> justification and before any meaningful discussion has taken place.

I don't see anything odd about the statement. My input, once again and 
I'll leave it at this, there might be 'new services' where the IETF 
has no "legal" OR "Security Audit" choice but to provide it in secured 
only mode and thus, for those who need to get access MUST be updated 
with modern software client access tools that support such security, 
not just TLS.   The IETF lawyer should determine if they must comply 
with PCI/DSS security audits.  Thats all. It wasn't difficult.

Of course, where it isn't needed, its common sense to keep legacy 
access for the old timers to access it via their own means or tools. 
  That includes me with various simple access tools, in particular, a 
non-SSL FTP scripting tool for quick command line download of RFC 
files from the IETF ftp site.  If that was made SSL only, we would 
have to update the script. I don't have time for that so it would 
"break something" for me.

> 26 messages on and the consensus thus far is that an answer to Lloyd
> Wood's one-liner is very much required.

I didn't see anything that stood out. Are you referring to his why 
question?  Really?  It seems others answered why.

Thanks for your comments.