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

"Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins@arbor.net> Tue, 02 June 2015 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rdobbins@arbor.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 40B7F1A8913 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 23:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 S7R4ghUhm4fO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 23:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5129B1A88EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 23:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padjw17 with SMTP id jw17so54756716pad.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=UdPPytvN6SdZTs0ohCSGKIeXvYIMIl68wy3hH24CFvM=; b=DzaghUtQ4Ubkkg+pMgr8PU5np0OGDIkXB86IIZQ/PBzVQV+upW9ZX+GN+Ej0Fj9nIX 7DRONcQBiwazKRuoE97DsRC6QCZc5JC6JbkOkIDPwRbwQlfUosmroGENX+NwWh0um92x w5KeBJ/TsDkijiFOZyuNeRfk/H252pCVYHS80=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=UdPPytvN6SdZTs0ohCSGKIeXvYIMIl68wy3hH24CFvM=; b=KWkBZjAnM5fW+0hxEBUcLs0D70qexUyv3XbxLboFU4yknVi5EIyACaysSSqdv/nV6R lAQ3t18jMsilTEmlfyHfZFw5c2IOMgtl2pb7H7jov8VBMMJKnI9olr3bsJ/ZRvtO+RjZ meoDoPd1iQL626HnQrGge4TwB1FNhAWpNzlSadeHekXeEtR9AVZsnjXy1ZvII0iOHKwn iViG/rRfa9jINQFj0Dli4XVm5fF/KMHUOhkpHdIZAJMBH58XFrIgCLnTYC36rI0RHrEx Ia85Fkmx9rcyK1yZH2guOIIcWxir7Ve7Zmsoba+fB+IQMuuMrgXglIadK2wldvQPvRF1 AUdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkuY8hulICVc+DfBzAeJ26ZcfAraZXPoqh7fBZy+AgfwWAXam5aRJuk3wSW3KMHvV4uDHq2
X-Received: by 10.66.120.47 with SMTP id kz15mr47149550pab.20.1433228367889; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.136] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ni1sm16671554pdb.32.2015.06.01.23.59.25 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:59:22 +0700
Message-ID: <9A3DDB49-07A8-40C8-8935-AD826B242672@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150601232208.GE17122@localhost>
References: <20150601164359.29999.35343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgRPFooA5fVFwvdprb3wPD+Y55pD+7RWjkACDv7T_TBW5Q@mail.gmail.com> <1472054.O9DP0qoCQf@gongo> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1506011720390.12155@bofh.nohats.ca> <556CE3C1.5000407@cs.tcd.ie> <B6A87923-FDEF-4F98-85F7-8264620DAA3E@arbor.net> <20150601232208.GE17122@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/b8Gg0vTqNKpZWCGrZ9WuhVaQQgk>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:59:29 -0000

On 2 Jun 2015, at 6:22, Nico Williams wrote:

> Your objections w.r.t. DoS attack characterization are hardly "broad" 
> enough.

If the IETF wish to make HTTP/S the default access mechanisms for RFCs, 
drafts, etc., that's fine.  My point is that the larger 'HTTP/S 
everywhere' campaign has serious drawbacks, and that the problems it 
causes in broadening the DDoS attack surface while at the same time 
making it more difficult and expensive for defenders to mitigate DDoS 
attacks are both broad and quite serious.

And I strongly suggest that the IETF stay out of socio-political issues 
and stick to its knitting with regards to technical innovation.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>