RE: Security for various IETF services

[<[e-mail]>]

once you hand security the keys to your organisation, it's no longer your organisation.

I am unsurprised by the increasing speed of security moves here (really, security
policy matters; policy is easy to push. governments do it all the time) and
the increasing slowness of everything else. (it's been twenty years since
RFC1323bis kicked off. Don't hold your breath.)

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn

I was right in warning about DTN. Seems I''m right in warning about this. right?
________________________________________
From: ietf [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant [[e-mail]]
Sent: 07 April 2014 15:24
To: John C Klensin; Ted Lemon; Stephen Farrell
Cc: Tim Bray; IETF-Discussion; The IESG
Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services

On 07/04/2014 15:02, John C Klensin wrote:
> As to the core proposal, unlike SM, I would like to see each new
> application that someone proposes to be accessible through "secure"
> means only discussed one at a time.
I concur with John.
> My fear of the whole Prepass effort was that it would be used in "we
> approved that, therefore we can and should do this without further
> discussion" arguments. I just thought it would take a few years to get
> to that point.
That was the root of my object to the publication of the Attack RFC.

- Stewart