IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Adept Encryption: Was: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment)

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Thu, 21 August 2014 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
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 3A6ED1A00FC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 03:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 a1eqn2aPa8Te for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 03:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE55E1A00DB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 03:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.245.231.67:11739] by server-15.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id A4/BD-12002-9D5C5F35; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:11:37 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1408615873!29647749!2
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.43]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 30823 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2014 10:11:22 -0000
Received: from exht022p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.43) by server-11.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 21 Aug 2014 10:11:22 -0000
Received: from EXHY011V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.103) by EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:11:15 +0100
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.200.4) by email365.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:11:16 +0100
Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.19) by AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:11:14 +0000
Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) by AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) with mapi id 15.00.1010.016; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:11:14 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: nico@cryptonector.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Subject: RE: Adept Encryption: Was: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment)
Thread-Topic: Adept Encryption: Was: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment)
Thread-Index: AQHPvMP2AuxVJ2IG8ESWBidoQO1Q3JvaPakAgAAEcICAAAKegIAAkZ+5
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:11:14 +0000
Message-ID: <351730e648d34bce99e32729b975cbba@AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwh1xzaxqqnnbdgFQrR0pWknsHru8zjnjCMVjihymXtKNw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1408202100590.6648@bofh.nohats.ca> <53F548E5.2070208@cs.tcd.ie>, <CAK3OfOiZbakdqjcwRs=PSSYzY_2djca2RBbYAGgRiw0gXX68Tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOiZbakdqjcwRs=PSSYzY_2djca2RBbYAGgRiw0gXX68Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [124.170.214.211]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0310C78181
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(377454003)(24454002)(199003)(189002)(81342001)(66066001)(4396001)(80022001)(106116001)(79102001)(15975445006)(76176999)(15395725005)(92566001)(74482001)(81542001)(54356999)(2656002)(106356001)(21056001)(74316001)(33646002)(64706001)(83072002)(95666004)(108616004)(77982001)(85306004)(85852003)(93886004)(31966008)(101416001)(20776003)(105586002)(15198665003)(46102001)(76482001)(83322001)(99396002)(19580405001)(86362001)(107046002)(74502001)(19580395003)(74662001)(87936001)(50986999)(15202345003)(76576001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB439; H:AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
X-OriginatorOrg: surrey.ac.uk
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: EXHY011v.surrey.ac.uk
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY011v.surrey.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZmGzLUtTqf9e6oAznilwDOXf1eM
Cc: paul@nohats.ca, phill@hallambaker.com, ietf@ietf.org
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, 21 Aug 2014 10:11:44 -0000

aiming to get a term as part of ietf culture is thinking too small. what is opportunistic security -for-? what does it support?

the principle of proactively prudent privacy is the protocol design pattern you're looking for. you can sell prudence and privacy.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:27:51 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: Paul Wouters; Phillip Hallam-Baker; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: Adept Encryption: Was: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment)

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> Personally, I think the probability that we suddenly discover
> any significantly better term is negligible. Not because OS
> is super-good, but rather because nothing is super-good. And
> good-enough should be good-enough here.

+1.

OS is not an awesome term.  My hope is that OS will become part of the
broader culture, just like "SSL" and "TLS".  That means that the term
has to be accessible, even if that means it has to be terse.  If OS
does not become part of the broader culture then the term won't burden
us much more than any other term we could pick instead, because it
will at the very least become part of IETF culture.

Once we're accustomed to a term, the fact that others could have been
picked becomes mostly unimportant, and any imperfections of the term
we do pick will not be a burden (because we'll be used to them).

> In fact, I'd say so its so negligible that attempting to find
> such (yet again, maybe for the 8th time?) is counterproductive.

Near as I can tell there are no remaining substantive objections to
Viktor's draft, only ones related to wordsmithing, writing style, and
the name we'll give to this concept.  All of these are a flavor of
bikeshedding.  We should stop arguing about such things, make just one
more small effort to adjust Viktor's prose, and publish.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email