IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 04 June 2015 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CACD1A889B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 PTEjDLt0k-ju for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21BBC1A88A6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t54IrH5O007633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55709E9C.7030603@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:53:16 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>, 'Stephen Farrell' <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"
References: <20150601164359.29999.35343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0ab501d09e37$f4098980$dc1c9c80$@tndh.net> <556F6083.4080801@cs.tcd.ie> <0adf01d09e40$cf957b00$6ec07100$@tndh.net> <556F8339.5030002@cs.tcd.ie> <0b3901d09e73$7dad4740$7907d5c0$@tndh.net>
In-Reply-To: <0b3901d09e73$7dad4740$7907d5c0$@tndh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: t54IrH5O007633
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V5kxwRGCxWo1C6NgFlmwGXJTpus>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 04 Jun 2015 18:54:52 -0000


On 6/3/2015 8:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Put another way; if the IESG believes it has the excess time to make
> clearly political statements (rather than focus on the justifiable
> technical requirement), maybe we need to revisit the workload on the
> NomCom and reduce the number of ADs...

+1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email