Re: unaccessible for Tor users

Michael Richardson <> Tue, 15 March 2016 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058C712D5B8 for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwGCF8sjLJgr for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76A612DA4A for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2BC203AD; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A83463755; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:01:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: unaccessible for Tor users
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160313143521.GC26841@Hirasawa> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:01:58 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Yui Hirasawa <>, IETF Disgust List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:02:05 -0000

Jari Arkko <> wrote:
    > It is important that IETF documents are accessible via Tor. It is
    > important that whatever CAPTCHA's are being employed, they are
    > accessible to everyone. It is important that we at the IETF are able to
    > deal with DoS attacks.

These systems do not need to be the same system, do they?
I think we are talking about, and not datatracker.

I think that most of is static; that it could be rsync'ed, and
we could have instances (with different names) that aren't behind cloudflare
(but, which would be far more DDoS'able).

    > The question: Yui: I was under the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that
    > is generally accessible to everyone in the usual way, but that
    > some blacklisted nodes will have to go through a CAPTCHA process before
    > being able to continue. Is this so, or is there an experience that says
    > nodes are blocked and there isn’t even a possibility to go through a
    > CAPTCHA? Or is the problem that there is a CAPTCHA but you do not feel
    > that it is done in a way that is appropriate? Does all this relate to
    > http or https traffic?

    > The observations:

    > o   I do not feel that contracted running of multiple copies of our
    > servers constitutes a man-in-the-middle arrangement.

    > o   I have asked the matter to be discussed in our IT/tools/IAOC
    > meetings, but I’ll note that we may not have any more magical answers
    > than what is already being discussed on the list.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-