Re: Proposed Proposed Statement on e-mail encryption at the IETF

"Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca> Thu, 04 June 2015 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 0C0F01A90EA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 LgyZ0IxWsqZ4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C081D1A90CF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iebmu5 with SMTP id mu5so8965050ieb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type; bh=1gokMI5s4zTY4GHqCtX/Q/vEnLAf5khrKvn7D3a1g3I=; b=gxufcTFK5r5ZulT7zNnxxg9bVRqBcohkCfqmhrfvo4SstDfaCimbYQioWsAkkcJs7n Ix+HWpOGHvi4PW6lbzdN2h+BLeh7nho6LeA6h2hgrELzeEHmWqq+JzV/lZ8Rka91rO5o 67syvMGBoqK1KXkIC530OKbe16AqMOmU6Nzy4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=1gokMI5s4zTY4GHqCtX/Q/vEnLAf5khrKvn7D3a1g3I=; b=hgWdM8rsiukP6ehvMpzVf9onD89LYhs8nrKekNsdedm/f25OfXFhXYL+1ik9NT2xlW k18iqTtGrxFaIXNceyEItrBtcvPNl47uTDo9RpDo6WsG53dtDnz+4PDeXY0Y1DS3CTA0 fRGYqReaTkdssBtdWmgWqgCQJ2WwkHWkQ/fwnHR5qFFuXzjoQxn+H9FwOu1w04XcJVSO VWx8I8M2qDGKq2lKkTU+Ih7WJDDhe65lv94033v0PNFWbX2vcRP7Ly516Btfcp1G7B5J nmzX5QQQ4S+IhlybJZCX7hRDxacsJ/FxmpwZ1ZIkoVYSH1Nm66X0TMupeoMpMwMvQOcv SyNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkA9cV9ZDute1e5aOmH/x3Q2xnC+M+MOPbxhYdGZUXa7LRNxiOF5GSJYaS2pKZkyUibx7Yh
X-Received: by 10.50.8.68 with SMTP id p4mr7761426iga.4.1433448606206; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [199.212.92.103] (135-23-68-43.cpe.pppoe.ca. [135.23.68.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p196sm1844813iop.15.2015.06.04.13.10.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Proposed Statement on e-mail encryption at the IETF
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:10:04 -0400
Message-ID: <E87DFF2B-D38F-4709-A9CD-95FD4D99AA20@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <2CA50C9A80A6D72C8D57630D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <DD88F4E4-6BBA-4610-BB49-3158A26DF55B@hopcount.ca> <20150602152432.GE5551@besserwisser.org> <556F5206.5090006@yahoo.com> <2CA50C9A80A6D72C8D57630D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ogCAYapV-fblNVhJiLPhJXnTkDA>
Cc: =?utf-8?q?M=C3=A5ns?= Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>, 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: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:10:08 -0000

On 4 Jun 2015, at 3:45, John C Klensin wrote:

> I also note that "PGP key signing parties" used to be a regular
> feature at
> almost every IETF meeting.  If we were serious about secure
> communications
> (not just email) within the IETF community, we would reinstitute
> those,
> review signing criteria and create some guidelines, and make
> sure we could
> get X.509 certs issued/signed too, if necessary in an IETF or
> ISOC tree.

For what it's worth, I am willing to volunteer for this. If there's a 
room and a timeslot available, I could do it in Prague, even. I've done 
lots of these in the past (although none at the IETF).

I believe I am (still) a CACert assurer of some kind, too, although it 
has been long enough since I've done anything with that that I would 
need a refresh (both on the procedures and documentation required, and 
on current interest CACert) to incorporate that into the mix.

While we're getting ahead of ourselves, if there was an ISOC or IETF CA 
that was fed and watered sufficiently well that it was worth using in 
some glorious future, incorporating that (them) seems like a lovely idea 
too.

Rewinding to reality, perhaps there are other PGP and/or CACert 
enthusiasts who would like to join in and talk about at least some level 
of PGP fumbling in Prague.


Joe