draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 27 August 2014 04:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 D03801A03C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 BbUi62k74i6I for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3237E1A03BE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7R4F5qk011466 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:15:08 -0700
Message-ID: <53FD5AA3.90703@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:12:19 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aXmkdlsmc-n-vJMWTk5RAnZdOsk
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 27 Aug 2014 04:15:11 -0000

Folks,

A new version of the draft was issued today.

And the Sponsoring AD promptly decided that there is IETF consensus on
the draft, scheduling it for the next IESG telechat.  The Sponsoring AD
has deemed all changes since the -02 version is minor.

This is spite of the fact that /nearly every word/ of the newest draft
is new.

Yes, really:


https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-03&difftype=--hwdiff&submit=Go!&url2=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04

I did another detailed review of the draft:

     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05531.html

including:

> Summary:
> 
>    The paper defines and explains flexible approach to the use of
> encryption on the Internet.  It assigns the term 'opportunistic
> security' to this term.
> 
>    The latest draft has extensive changes from the previous version.
> 
>    Although many of the changes are quite helpful, the document still
> suffers from confusing or unexplained terminology and some unfortunately
> initial organization.
> 
>    A number of points from previous reviews have not been addressed.
> 
>    The paper continues to freely make strong assertions, without
> providing any substantiation or even, in some cases, explanation.  At a
> minimum, every term that is used, every assertion that is made and
> anything else that derives from Internet experience should be documented.
> 
>    Concerns with the term "opportunistic security" persist.  It is both
> vague and overblown, given the specific technical point it is meant to
> address.  That concern is about encryption and the term should make that
> clear.
> 
>    The paper still needs extensive revision before it should be
> considered for publication.


Blanket dismissal of substantive concerns is not the usual approach to
work in the IETF.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net