IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: https at ietf.org

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Thu, 07 November 2013 05:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
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 2D8DA11E817D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:17:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxLX+E6A9o94 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7A011E817B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:17:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P0HBB5G8EO0005HC@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:12:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="utf-8"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P0DS85DTO000004G@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:12:04 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01P0HBB3DIIC00004G@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:11:01 -0800
Subject: Re: https at ietf.org
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 07 Nov 2013 05:56:29 +0100" <20131107045629.GE21546@besserwisser.org>
References: <CAHBU6ivbrk=NXgd4_5Upik+8H0AbHRy3kJnN=8fcK+Bz3pOV9Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1311051733570.4200@egate.xpasc.com> <01P0FR4HDQNG00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAHBU6ivZS33r4HHbCC391Ug9fMtZkJ3nojEeeqH5L+0+o3ZqGQ@mail.gmail.com> <01P0FU0CS96Q00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <26C6A672-A5D2-44C4-B343-9CCE5E388348@standardstrack.com> <01P0GHJKW8PY00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <20131107045629.GE21546@besserwisser.org>
To: Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 05:17:16 -0000

> Subject: Re: https at ietf.org Date: Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:52:45AM -0800 Quoting ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com (ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com):

> > 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.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email