Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 06 September 2013 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 8ACE621E80E2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 16:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Tw+wQGaUhV8d for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 16:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B08E21E80DB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 16:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r86NOuwJ025752; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 16:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1378509900; bh=k5ELnr1ZpoAYlIky6OxpugnwSDXYutgYqvoIU+1Oe94=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=CWdaEVta1m7YQUdqcrVT9c3m0oOb4kLL4RVcQFgZ5vIEvqsz7MvBwoW8y0OZYebrR oylkSmHgor+LL419tcOl7pgxnXBfDYm1FVnLsC1XsJJQkknDdpuxs3GsvGfXzL+3i/ FxBreeNU+bdoq59A9CY2M1hUaJUz3QSi7koZui/4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1378509900; i=@resistor.net; bh=k5ELnr1ZpoAYlIky6OxpugnwSDXYutgYqvoIU+1Oe94=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=r7qmsFntxBjJVwowqczME5FJbd9QPFHehv9pAn+y8hKngYF2IKd/0WcvBZjbqbIq6 8hUHujlAMno9qTvepnRiBy9mGMIXS2kMhYQjtK4oXHLWrGkT585kwn5h9AGdKTFRw6 bAXrG8GELSuGAPZc5qdAnwMiu3CpnYDBYGotJNKE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130906150932.073e78c8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:59:21 -0700
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itwDc8DiY4B_2GGe0xWZ3Zs_ctx3BkKkzdGTZT2PfgMkA@mail.g mail.com>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1309051743130.47262@hiroshima.bogus.com> <52293197.1060809@gmail.com> <5C7FECAB-8A22-4AF1-B023-456458E1B288@nominum.com> <522949C2.8010206@gmail.com> <52294C6D.7090206@gmail.com> <m2ppsmzgs5.wl%randy@psg.com> <5229686A.5090308@gmail.com> <31078634-5AEA-4FC9-80A8-2E77650BA530@piuha.net> <20130906072539.GJ5700@besserwisser.org> <9AC2A86F-250C-4B3C-B9BA-8DF44C937B41@nominum.com> <20130906210638.GC3428@besserwisser.org> <158C3418-AE87-4843-BFD5-3E2AC3495631@virtualized.org> <CAHBU6itwDc8DiY4B_2GGe0xWZ3Zs_ctx3BkKkzdGTZT2PfgMkA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:25:12 -0000

Hi Tim,
At 15:02 06-09-2013, Tim Bray wrote:
>How about a BCP saying conforming implementations of a wide-variety 
>of security-area RFCs MUST be open-source?

A BCP is not needed to do that.  It is already doable "but we [1] 
know that you [2] are not going to do it".

Speaking of open source, 
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-openssl/openssl/trunk/rand/md_rand.c?rev=141&view=diff&r1=141&r2=140&p1=openssl/trunk/rand/md_rand.c&p2=/openssl/trunk/rand/md_rand.c

>*ducks*

Where?  I don't see any ducks. :-)

Regards,
-sm

1. The word "we" is used in a general context.
1. The word "you" is used in a general context.