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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 02 June 2015 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 0A22C1B319F; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:02:29 -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 LK0eHPh8eZCD; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29C491B316F; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1233CDA007D; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 18:02:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.192] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:02:27 -0700
References: <20150601164359.29999.35343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgRPFooA5fVFwvdprb3wPD+Y55pD+7RWjkACDv7T_TBW5Q@mail.gmail.com> <556DE0EF.2040809@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <556DE0EF.2040809@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <FE9A2408-555C-4B06-9009-D6C1D93356B4@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:02:27 -0400
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l2WGik8BjT_6JymHa7ejw9EtruI>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:02:29 -0000

On Jun 2, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> Leaving out the have-nots - or those whose access is blocked by others
> when content cannot be scanned - isn't moving forward.

That would certainly be a problem if the consensus were not to provide both a secure and an, as you call it, "open" version of all IETF documents.