Re: https at ietf.org

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 07 November 2013 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 18B7921E81E9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:45:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xpT1N+mWkinh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com (mail-vb0-f43.google.com [209.85.212.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448D021E81C2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:45:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id g10so605455vbg.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:45:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xetbel0WC/ZGGTeCkztV4UhSgANTonn1k43FOR0sr24=; b=bNkY4/9vnZXKRRYBfn4v9Ed6j7tRyqOBHiCAp04+VXV/GNEmUI/1V00WbpGtscCmdj GtGDispJa+Gu4WpDmoVeNhLkR5fDUUb4A2sjSz7u6qmgcIbN0e1fAaQMq06jIYCOkMSt 8T04YXnJ5x5lhB2xdTNTjhM6jrymgV2D5cUmEg4C9gMcONnzbGpXiTxunXfQTmkt1WXF T1qeS9dEiiOEvHtp5wTtRrq2pXRhmJNBsvluZ2+aPFsXWQ4a69VAkvXqy4nVPYLu9cJg rlb0CXeykYFAsqVG81OMbLDoL3QldKP3Jt7euQPpVQj0nMSgF5ByZYuQ4jrqSSYIov5x vigw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlcjQrodTzXfYKDBx368Cq6VHlHpi0A8haqXizBCsgY0d22CNRVIgLcl1LKL7cBMlqLDDWP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.221.40.10 with SMTP id to10mr7687075vcb.22.1383846335110; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.110.134 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:45:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <01P0HZY6YB9O00004H@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <CAHBU6ivbrk=NXgd4_5Upik+8H0AbHRy3kJnN=8fcK+Bz3pOV9Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1311051733570.4200@egate.xpasc.com> <01P0FR4HDQNG00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAHBU6ivZS33r4HHbCC391Ug9fMtZkJ3nojEeeqH5L+0+o3ZqGQ@mail.gmail.com> <01P0FU0CS96Q00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <26C6A672-A5D2-44C4-B343-9CCE5E388348@standardstrack.com> <01P0GHJKW8PY00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <20131107045629.GE21546@besserwisser.org> <01P0HBB3DIIC00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <20131107080102.GF21546@besserwisser.org> <01P0HZY6YB9O00004H@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:45:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuW6OajgLK0HOY2i-ewAHy0dX7iaarQykq3PWsn00m0aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: https at ietf.org
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113375763a7cb204ea99d5dc"
Cc: Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:45:58 -0000

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:54 AM, <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com> wrote:

>
> > The trust that the
> > Government(s) will only tap the traffic of those that are a grave concern
> > to their security interests has completely vanished.
>
> That doesn't trump the need for access to our materials to be as open as
> possible.
>

Hmm, what does “open” mean? Maximally accessible technologically, or
maximally accessible without any worry about who might be watching?  The
answer isn’t obvious at all.

This is a discussion that needs to happen at much greater length and depth,
and outside not just inside the IETF community.  But, FYI, there are a
substantial number of people who feel like the sane response to pervasive
surveillance is pervasive encryption.  And if you encrypt “only the
controversial stuff”, you make encryption itself controversial, and its use
a red flag for those currently attacking the Internet.  So; I don’t think
I’m insane, or even unreasonably paranoid, but I do think it would be a
very good thing, and would maximize the general usefulness of our
resources, if we switched all public-facing IETF resources to HTTPS-only.

I’m perfectly aware that there are those who disagree.

 -T



>
>                                 Ned
>