IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Thoughts from IETF-92

Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Tue, 31 March 2015 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
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 1D3811ACE2C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ZTUGz5XEVQe1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com (qproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.16.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 004211ACE14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5923 invoked by uid 0); 31 Mar 2015 15:17:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by qproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2015 15:17:52 -0000
Received: from box462.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.62]) by cmgw3 with id ALxl1q0161MNPNq01Lxo8E; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:57:51 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Juti8qIC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:117 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=Jklo8jbM_8AA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=8WrITzYgnNwA:10 a=HGEM6zKYvpEA:10 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=0NAxjt0tji-tEy5ZZjIA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:CC:To:From:Subject:Date; bh=4+LH+wXTWC9TtrSVuA8WCqm6hniTR6m6oSI3BnUSPbo=; b=PpBduBq/PuCrY9J1SciDFz8WfNhtZQgACYkCFrEn0O9rujSKFXz7deGkPC7iFWzFeJ3/5y5qmpWoaNDxKRWeRx7/tdfAoWpaxI/KxxeyHeUth0i9vYVQ6Hw/xKjnMxak;
Received: from [108.56.131.201] (port=49787 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1Ycxbv-0008Au-0v; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:57:47 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:57:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Thoughts from IETF-92
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <D1402B5D.23078%richard@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: Thoughts from IETF-92
References: <7A5C678D-4897-4B9E-908F-14D7C389C48B@ietf.org> <D13F4955.22F18%richard@shockey.us> <9115F582-3480-49B8-8523-F3A181ED93B8@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9115F582-3480-49B8-8523-F3A181ED93B8@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 108.56.131.201 authed with richard+shockey.us}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lyJLiNQP6lE8E2sTBqC2l7C559w>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@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, 31 Mar 2015 15:18:07 -0000

I know .. SIDR has proven that but you have to start somewhere.



On 3/31/15, 3:10 AM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>> On Mar 30, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
>> 
>> The CU folks told us that this is the NUMBER 1 issue their members
>> complain about. Yes it is our problem because we define SIP.
>
>I spoke with one of them in the lobby Saturday morning. I explained how
>what she was calling for was a global (federated?) PKI, and she wasn¹t
>likely to achieve her goal without one.
>
>That it wasn¹t a protocol problem, as we have the protocols and protocol
>support for it. All it takes is money.
>
>Hmmm.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email