Re: https at ietf.org

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.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 6344B21F9D39 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:46:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6, 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 HI4NwMurMoCG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.215.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0A721E812B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:45:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip68-100-74-194.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.194]:52044 helo=[192.168.15.194]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1VdsBX-0002Qj-25 for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:45:34 -0800
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1D62C4F5-6A81-41F7-BB76-19200FCA2DC6"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Message-Id: <B3AE10BB-3A50-42A6-A7A1-E76257D9A39A@standardstrack.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: https at ietf.org
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 20:45:30 -0500
References: <CAHBU6ivbrk=NXgd4_5Upik+8H0AbHRy3kJnN=8fcK+Bz3pOV9Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1311051733570.4200@egate.xpasc.com>
To: IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1311051733570.4200@egate.xpasc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:46:24 -0000

Because would not someone retrieving an RFC want to know it really came from the IETF, especially when it says
   The protocol MUST provide provisions for lawful intercept and
   MUST post a notification when traitorous speech is detected.

;-)

And, don’t we need to eat our own dog food?

On Nov 5, 2013, at 8:35 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:

> 
> I don't see reason to use https for delivery of public documents such
> as RFCs and Internet Drafts. All that would really accomplish is
> reduce caching opportunities.
> 
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Tim Bray wrote:
> 
>> Wouldn?t it be a good idea for everything at *.ietf.org to be served by
>> HTTPS, and only by HTTPS?
>>