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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 01 June 2015 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 5BDDA1B338B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:13:46 -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 9qnarPk2tw9F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5888C1B338D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9EA7C082C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:13:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2meAREvxxt2S for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:13:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:dcf4:5105:6293:2010]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D49D7C0823 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:13:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <556CBCF5.3060402@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:13:41 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"
References: <20150601164359.29999.35343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgRPFooA5fVFwvdprb3wPD+Y55pD+7RWjkACDv7T_TBW5Q@mail.gmail.com> <1472054.O9DP0qoCQf@gongo>
In-Reply-To: <1472054.O9DP0qoCQf@gongo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fcLCsQVBNYm4upKPjP5h-pDp3UQ>
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:13:46 -0000

Just to put on record: I disagree with Niels and agree with the IESG. 
Encryption everywhere is good.

Once a connection is encrypted and certificate-protected, a whole class 
of worries can be removed from the threat models; having fewer things to 
worry about is great when designing protocol stacks.

The only issue I have with the document is that "great-cannon" is 
spelled as "great-canon" once.