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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 02 June 2015 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 B18331A92E7; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:40:10 -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 NZA6fcY7qfeP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80181A0013; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t52LdjGL002841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <556E229F.4050807@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:39:43 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Subject: Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"
References: <20150601164359.29999.35343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgRPFooA5fVFwvdprb3wPD+Y55pD+7RWjkACDv7T_TBW5Q@mail.gmail.com> <556DE0EF.2040809@isi.edu> <CAL02cgSdSFOaDqz9+jAZ7KsoMXOa5u=ff_i=c3EQ-SG0-ZPG7A@mail.gmail.com> <556DFCF7.3020607@isi.edu> <CAL02cgSOWpV51mQUdmeFwJaDS1fDWfG5Du4tRGgVW8OtvR1z3Q@mail.gmail.com> <556E1F7C.7060602@isi.edu> <CAL02cgTDXkmUwVHWo2_jrj+Lj4AcxnMUj98V2L4wqLrB9Mf9cw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTDXkmUwVHWo2_jrj+Lj4AcxnMUj98V2L4wqLrB9Mf9cw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: t52LdjGL002841
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CXjnGuQl24kZopJ8lPFBW9ANCy4>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@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 21:40:10 -0000


On 6/2/2015 2:30 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
...
> I would rather not preemptively knuckle under to censorship.

You have that luxury.

Don't make that decision for others.

> If it
> turns out that we turn on HTTPS and nobody can see it,

This isn't a hypothetical. There's harm even if blocking isn't universal.

> we can adapt to that fact.  

We are (by consensus) - by continuing to use HTTP.

Joe