IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 02 June 2015 17:00 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 EE81C1B2B58; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:00:39 -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 dpTf-2dvKy9M; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webspace.isi.edu (webspace.isi.edu [128.9.64.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B27C71B2B39; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t52GxRHF011837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 09:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <556DE0EF.2040809@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 09:59:27 -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>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRPFooA5fVFwvdprb3wPD+Y55pD+7RWjkACDv7T_TBW5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/E0egHQdlPlfy3i0Cxk1xwSsdpRk>
Cc: 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 17:00:40 -0000

On 6/1/2015 10:16 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Do it.  Do it boldly and fearlessly.  Make the statement and implement it.
> 
...
> Don't be tied to legacy.  Anything that doesn't support HTTPS at this
> point needs to upgrade and deserves to be broken.

Leaving out the have-nots - or those whose access is blocked by others
when content cannot be scanned - isn't moving forward.

HTTP isn't legacy. It's open. I thought the IETF was too.

Joe

PS - I noticed you didn't PGP-sign this post. Hello, pot.

(ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email