IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Method of Contact - Consultation on DRAFT Infrastructure and Services Vulnerability Disclosure Statement

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Fri, 07 August 2020 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 726A83A0D03; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 sHZuLLk5VZFm; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41BA93A0F26; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 077GIap7003878; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:19:09 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=mXsidyzutUWuzh1i4dY5s+a7Ck34g569FBqZuEm7peg=; b=avjYaWnrCCTz2jeBxyIiupsP1HjnIdVHwEDMjZYlAuf0J58pPEbqi9FjQYbllzS0JnPX BqNl6DkJfU0SG2vLo+0736AE7CNOiRsfM4ksP0/iW2LbcSr9jgeZyJMEd0vXTfzyoOX7 Lx1jqJ4Kni7Bi7qMdHIViGkmY/w9j+lYD2bX4waLUmPzWjvZbdv5FKX9HEX05LmwtK5F f4awn0NoDF6Jh48Cl7Tfh3lwpQHEthICnspAOrJSJp3wQu9bWhvCNGO+0ra9i5D8lnez oox476u9/0iJsNa5OtlteKtA+/SDJME3V8QQUeY7xZVVFckUynOzGqUz6Y0Iz34D0ECs nA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (a72-247-45-34.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.34] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32n6yeypde-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 17:19:08 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 077FolB3019817; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:19:08 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.117]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 32rt3fmf1f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 12:19:08 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.119) by ustx2ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.123) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:19:07 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:19:07 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Method of Contact - Consultation on DRAFT Infrastructure and Services Vulnerability Disclosure Statement
Thread-Topic: Method of Contact - Consultation on DRAFT Infrastructure and Services Vulnerability Disclosure Statement
Thread-Index: AQHWbAI3zbupAS5px0i1n9NAFehPLakrQ4CAgAGiL4A=
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 16:19:07 +0000
Message-ID: <63417743-55C7-4986-B4B5-FA096A7E3C8A@akamai.com>
References: <965FAE2A-59D2-4D4B-8D95-76B84483C379@cable.comcast.com> <93CE85F0-71D3-44F5-8F40-68B489927D0D@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <93CE85F0-71D3-44F5-8F40-68B489927D0D@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.39.20071300
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.116.44]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C7C22C1151F0B54BAC2F8E219652DA2C@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-07_12:2020-08-06, 2020-08-07 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008070109
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-07_12:2020-08-06, 2020-08-07 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008070114
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Pvzh4BkWbJh9uVqCT5FNGlLuBU0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 16:19:42 -0000

    >    It seems like a web-based reporting system may also provide a better level of security protection by encrypting the channel & contents of the communication vs. less secure email.

Separate thread.

You *might* want to accept PGP.  Or put a notice (in the policy, on the website) that since this is handled by a team, rather than have a shared PGP key, use the webform since the PGP will be decrypted once it enters "processing." :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email