Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review
Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> Mon, 18 July 2016 17:28 UTC
Return-Path: <nygren@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lurk@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lurk@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A67312D0FB for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JvYRMLURchKO for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 9256D12B053 for <lurk@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id q83so166372145iod.1 for <lurk@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bKLJCBuyx3mwAM6XzKXujOdm5rTab5dzF6fFTIwt0EU=; b=HaDNhJYNiHgm8UV1pkLoVivDfIlHo75fzFj58dHpCom/hHmi/Q2E6YWJLSxQxeA7A1 /8JvyT1WzDEyrJtgGVrX+GiS/z/eYhyvm/32pdo+wNDvxt24hKMnsby024lHfArxUErk ZTXb7cTlzl1e7zdxcLyHFA15PvQ+nwTbxkmtzBv7MmE9E5N6KoQ10s3Kk0/1+IwCuRGq 9RuY+/Pagc695TIx/3HKGqQG64jGyDtYVinyVcluP7sZMxJwVEHyIdUVc/Sj5bwFIvVb 4fXnyB8ZK/erzS4PgTHaW52Y874MBdhq0OTbyRvtFtmf3goS8F09mB55b4hLdgqDj8pZ HVhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=bKLJCBuyx3mwAM6XzKXujOdm5rTab5dzF6fFTIwt0EU=; b=mVIDVGyIg3mcB/F3gsQtWRsjVQnD/mhkzVKw7jTa3oMOW+Wz72S/j19FsKQKeVvaxP AURBh504vMnMxvr/uTpiUdxq+Axmw9D65UxzjIwN+VEULgVYzZMBFo+Ez7aThNz5CMPE M+ZSlfy/X/JMzIVNJB+mcATQUVsTt045GD0ZigERXPQ7OJlI7W6nXv5lp528f3r5uLkT nv2mXANTCezfrFbUSQYNjJA2JzWzE860bSu8Ai/OD3ct3xEgx+cmuG7PNmE6rSPf5aNA LJX9kkhRpFwLFiwNVPJhMdVJpG8rxcllz7cyygqK59lGxAmy4LfYpVSF1JHvs9atLiiI 77kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLygdHNw43++kmsNrO9UjPd6hAaNfklsF9PkVX+3zjukE5i45lChXmt7dqhMviEWKcgkADQj9CcbTBclw==
X-Received: by 10.107.23.70 with SMTP id 67mr3684202iox.186.1468862897853; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: nygren@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.137.69 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:28:17 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uAZTQD_BxEQpq-rg3CLpQxgqV34
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJiUq7VWiJW0X7_sEt0LAn1ta9MvvajWvAX=dDnjBvUjQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: lurk@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1148d3a0401dad0537ec4ba4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lurk/6VLvzIcpCFHsNqzWf5dEGlH8nvg>
Subject: Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review
X-BeenThere: lurk@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Limited Use of Remote Keys <lurk.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lurk>, <mailto:lurk-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lurk/>
List-Post: <mailto:lurk@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lurk-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lurk>, <mailto:lurk-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:28:21 -0000
As mentioned at the mic, I'd propose replacing "offloading TLS termination
to a content delivery network (CDN)" with "separating TLS termination
between servers in different trust domains". This covers both the CDN
use-case but also multiple servers operated by the same owner but with
different trust for some reason. Constraining down to require one of the
parties to be a CDN and the other party to be a content owner seems
unnecessarily restrictive.
Erik
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Salz, Rich
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Salz, Rich
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [Lurk] [E] LURK: proposed charter for review Mishra, Sanjay
- [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Erik Nygren
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Василий Долматов
- Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review Yaron Sheffer