RE: Security for various IETF services

Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 03 April 2014 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
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 BACAD1A034F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 00R0JL1TCobt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6AC1A0348 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1396567900; x=1428103900; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to:from:subject: mime-version; bh=tFpOaFO9/IPTVr/wOq/cWay57JK9+sUqP0XaBXWGJXY=; b=TzSkj5rI/ByltG0cMYCWyaYYaYq2ZUV88cwxXzhEqzbLu/8g6lOCaVi8 ODVvckzK0egEnyx/GnT6z707KIflqTUKFgpydCdHPVNAzDXTV9DganLZY 8oyX3NMxdm4fmyn4EbnAl0xpnldi2q1EYPZSjDguUo1flPwmJDH8oo6yT w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7397"; a="117578946"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2014 16:31:40 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,791,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="643369739"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 03 Apr 2014 16:31:40 -0700
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:31:39 -0700
Message-ID: <p06240601cf639cb2113b@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EEB6@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <533D8A90.60309@cs.tcd.ie> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EEB6@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:24:29 -0700
To: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>, <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: RE: Security for various IETF services
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kPBue2-wb4tvgY9DUZnVcyadRzo
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, 03 Apr 2014 23:31:49 -0000

My reaction is also to ask "Why?"  Security and privacy involve 
trade-offs where various costs (including operational difficulty) are 
weighed against the benefits, such as protecting information from 
unauthorized disclosure or modification.  So, I'd suggest that a 
blanket statement isn't a good idea, but rather, a service-by-service 
decision should be made.  For example, XMPP and document submission 
may justify requiring encryption while email and document retrieval 
might not.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
!!!!!CP MBI na ni deppart m'I  !pleH