Re: https at ietf.org

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Wed, 06 November 2013 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550B711E81FD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:50:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXzdykhIAQ0H for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2738011E81F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P0FU0GIP7K00033Z@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:45:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="UTF-8"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P0DS85DTO000004G@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:45:28 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01P0FU0CS96Q00004G@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 19:41:40 -0800
Subject: Re: https at ietf.org
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:35:02 -0800" <CAHBU6ivZS33r4HHbCC391Ug9fMtZkJ3nojEeeqH5L+0+o3ZqGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHBU6ivbrk=NXgd4_5Upik+8H0AbHRy3kJnN=8fcK+Bz3pOV9Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1311051733570.4200@egate.xpasc.com> <01P0FR4HDQNG00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAHBU6ivZS33r4HHbCC391Ug9fMtZkJ3nojEeeqH5L+0+o3ZqGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 03:50:44 -0000

> I disagree. I can’t think of an scenario in which a human who wants/needs
> to use IETF publications would not have access to an HTTPS-capable user
> agent.  -T

I actually doubt that's the case in some countries, but even if it is,
it's completely beside the point.

Sure, I have access to https-capable tools. But as it happens I prefer to
*use* some tools that don't have that capability.

This is, or is supposed to be, an open standards body, one that is
trying to encourage as many qualified people as possible to participate.
It makes no sense at all to restrict access in this way.

				Ned