[OPSEC] Conclusion of the OpSec WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 19 August 2020 23:42 UTC
Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014E13A0DB2; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 68ziUBdEkfXH; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (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 C5F3E3A0C33; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id j187so98100qke.11; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ls3qmgNM5hX0qlpTo5dYmIgdvuzqe5CnphOFNUffd8U=; b=BrsYiDU8sF4uGFKBh6ttPXacBUOyTG+gMwHSMe1fvuMmHf8uXKiJp4IFaNzrh4Sb9C 78mYHphCH1vvg2IOtfay/42QntlwMpKw3m1eOsBMELocjLhXnhzmyRRQqzCSJqQ59dux nXTsSGGcwl/V0NeZaelrLuH5OeIaKRxEXxWRtaglgCPw5zBykR3FicDnLuQGkZqvxLwb x/Y56sxhpHJy50eRRBhU1qpUtQ0yZXXU/Xly/bFNrkIda5Z1a+ozj8/icIhemSmQiGHx JC58xXwRxtcYrl55ijL+v8nB1qcWIxsOxUVF6WUbf/FZ9XrzKYK/ODQlCK7/MUy7Ru6x 0Ncg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ls3qmgNM5hX0qlpTo5dYmIgdvuzqe5CnphOFNUffd8U=; b=pdXmgMEkKk58WIfq0psMrDZ5LnJX1yeMsO7kyErzl7CQ8zxAOoT7inBAFrLRUV9+v5 4I/UoEGV3t4jSdbR7FZfpxBMketI+r5ukvzPqnuGJZa0AJ8as8qyGSVyoa3G64g2XOMW 3+bqA0DwAuOEWu3nF8OcnU6sUVowNctgksmEI+KOXUOt3vIWG1OrIZiGuaegIakig6DR BgYhIzArq2jtIj8pxPhMDz35wCl7pebQmkP12Vg6cCidWu5GGM/wwqtoiH5ZW/06gGZa GLjnV1SGijSYH085+cRreIEcvGhClEGXReBl9+89WjXMxxnMh861DCjuVJGA5OF3NdB3 PioA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530LBFPMnMXuNNShqqu562h9EqHaVJoTb1wHgtCy1r6Ka3e2LB4w peGLIfJotx9sCFR/pBar7shP35OPacjbiloKZkelZXyUkGM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNg0RLb2hA07l6Svyj12CDPoU9fQS5HevTa0TFUpr493bSuAFVrAygd/1EtjRT5EVbfMX25c3eOAJtsQSR0Z8=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a354:: with SMTP id m81mr394297qke.277.1597880574611; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:42:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFU7BATEMRfBMiHU9te8A5KAWrjWG1CVS=-BSyFjqyS7no_w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: opsec WG <opsec@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact.authors@ietf.org
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/G7csOTOX0mIvAmQJATJOzDdhXOU>
Subject: [OPSEC] Conclusion of the OpSec WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:42:57 -0000
The WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact ended on Aug 18th. During the WGLC serious technical objections were raised and some statements the document made were questioned. The chairs believe that there is insufficient support and no consensus to advance the document. The chairs would like to thank both OpSec and TLS working groups for reviewing the document. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry on behalf of the OpSec WG chairs.