Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-09.txt

Sam Whited <> Mon, 18 September 2017 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DEB1270AB for <>; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=dMcFNAnI; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Z3IWLg67
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8jt_2VOCZ1jV for <>; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1735126B6E for <>; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A0820C1B; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:32:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=vmfgysqXNtyc99NmK nb1cFhvUffWM252lJfqE9FCBk0=; b=dMcFNAnILjlXPQWJqMPAfEDJw9RunUd7H xmsSw+F1OUwJFBmkIP4HN2glwfbRfXv9k6Us1+va0rS8YJzr3OxZZZLU/Hw0w8j7 xrDfaypCkyD5ETQMAD454ntpXdW6KLH65VS1uaMoHEJxvSIeMiYa3WW4MlI2rX0V fago/rvWffqT+yrTcJaq8jrjbUZgNKOzjrK3hp1C2mGXsyYup/XfG7mRXiZn8Q2C aN+m7lEQyixXqCSpY9xO2JEdBJm8e++/D2tqhldGLWpRuxet9e3tT84g8GavwMXB LxeBB6WIItBtGLTAD1TpOQa77nMuzNjpL0nL48R+kEfNyLplooUww==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=vmfgys qXNtyc99NmKnb1cFhvUffWM252lJfqE9FCBk0=; b=Z3IWLg67Sh0z4eCIH9Jjz5 7N8dkWCP3Twq0zfQ1Y7m7qbU+2TWTziWJJPOi5xb/I2jPXl6eP0cgSPkW+KXmH/6 0Ohy2CulieecPYjWSZLpXYbbE9dO+Q9PlyzeiV0hYhCMrdTbpgMOsLxgf6xXhPLr Jo5Jflp0n9G/I+ZCrdstI+oB0FDzpLUSKq1CndCiLRGD+FZXYYtnej7sQ82CBTVT UNtl51i5N8w31FO5sy9yfT+AA89P1uECr9d/Gk9atLCjpaZywdXcah9oiPxogzJm hei2QKFzBsnumkX1RdR15ElWEkCzxmB9iEjiFNGxLiQRVUJ1kyrpTh+7rpr9TIPA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Sj6_WXh_gU05chCepML-s9UEz_g6rjFaC57F9tLGIiLVWiODLXqJlg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id C49259EB1B; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: Sam Whited <>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface - ajax-64b08692
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:32:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-09.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 03:32:29 -0000

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017, at 21:56, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> It's true that a nickname / handle / display name is not a solid basis
> on which to make authentication or authorization decisions. So don't do
> that. :-)
> Should we add a sentence about this to 7700bis?

I suppose it couldn't hurt, but I'm not sure that it's necessary either.
I was not attempting to suggest that the issue was that they would use
the nickname profile for authentication, but that misusing it could be
an issue in its own right.

> Again, if you would like to argue against publishing 7700bis, speak now
> or forever hold your peace.

That's what I'm doing right now :)

> You'd be going against the consensus of the
> working group (which, after all, did publish RFC 7700 in 2015), so an
> Internet-Draft (perhaps entitled "Nickname Profile Considered Harmful")
> would be the most effective way to make your case.

I do seem to be the lone dissenter in this matter and since I no longer
have a job that allows me the time to work on open source or standards
in any serious way outside of the weekends I'm afraid I won't be able to
make a better argument than what I've tried (poorly) to present in this
email chain.