IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] Simple Certificate Enrollment Protocol (SCEP)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 21 October 2014 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3471A88E3 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 qZYSljOuOEq1 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32A121A87ED for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-50-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9LG3eO1068074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:03:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-50-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.141] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <544681B8.3080401@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:03:40 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D69A391A-E918-4752-9151-B21A702BF34C@vpnc.org>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C739B9CAF27@uxcn10-tdc05.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <001001cfe7a0$52f31640$f8d942c0$@x500.eu> <10AA61E0-BC44-4515-822D-8C9885C9D7EE@vpnc.org> <543D4F5C.4010000@bbn.com> <543D5DE3.50507@gmail.com> <544681B8.3080401@bbn.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/jQFw0Gye40AfgaiAN7qPi1pTgu4
Cc: pkix <pkix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Simple Certificate Enrollment Protocol (SCEP)
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix/>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:03:48 -0000

On Oct 21, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> The real issue is that the argument put before PKIX and the Sec ADs,
> repeatedly, was that an RFC was needed to provide a stable reference document
> for SCEP. This is an absurd assertion; Cisco was capable of publishing its
> spec on a public Cisco web site, thus making it available to anyone who needed it.
> Internet search was already adequate (in that time frame) for anyone interested
> in the spec to find it on such a site. If Cisco vanishes, the doc will have been
> archived and thus remain available for many years.

If you want to change the rules for how RFCs are published, it might be better done so as a participant in an IETF-wide discussion, not as a WG chair who is preventing someone from using the process correctly. Otherwise, it simply looks like you are wielding power just to seem powerful.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email