Re: [regext] Privacy and HR considerations for draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 02 January 2019 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3253A130EE4 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 10:10:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=WHMyvSfb; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=PiWleSG/
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 QyR_s0bLLE82 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 10:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 67E06130EE2 for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 10:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 47032 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2019 18:10:31 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=b7b6.5c2cfe97.k1901; bh=2AkuBPItnA+IY91VJHsqqCIxThbN+qVlF9U5J8p5Y4k=; b=WHMyvSfb5CEk4WsR66+A99hys8V0jC0QUOEIHRCwsjOzaoceQBWSPPC8L1hBGZzSrbqTavVr6k8pLeNO1vtQnboXWT15ujfIl8OCrm06VtBU/BU8aLMtaPWSP0Wa0jgYP6GSszmpanELSgYwb0B7uJocCljfV2GufLQmVqwcs3mX+7ste8zg9GROvx8fnCCl8JWuxtugEtkl7OzAmpyG4pN73SzGACbANQx6RVWZKryVMacTFnTUEp7rweixf3sK
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=b7b6.5c2cfe97.k1901; bh=2AkuBPItnA+IY91VJHsqqCIxThbN+qVlF9U5J8p5Y4k=; b=PiWleSG/vznLyXeNIjO8avk8iWgps8KUwWtn0DAZMbO5cOlk9icCbMkKWK7TNqj+oZCd5aMenyx8nw1XNUaOamrCY4pXE6blCcYHL5297A03HNF4JteVimOwid6PBFqqEe335sdQm+nAjQZ3kPiCiNtNO5f9xmVme4XhEWYQztvj5Rc3nrLXKUx0Q03ei+Z+NFdbT1T+huQQO57vsMeQqCl3ducQlYgQWzXXKeMcd3quiT4zDXhWkPP5uM2uQtue
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 02 Jan 2019 18:10:30 -0000
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:10:30 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901021246440.84554@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Gould, James" <jgould@verisign.com>
Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <01E9282A-0F48-4A39-837A-52CBB362571F@verisign.com>
References: <41f72627-faf2-1fd4-b356-065b3cb98e2b@cis-india.org> <20181228194511.1ACBC200C07CD3@ary.qy> <01E9282A-0F48-4A39-837A-52CBB362571F@verisign.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/22kdskNdAIMolaRCjpOU8RHSLY4>
Subject: Re: [regext] Privacy and HR considerations for draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 18:10:35 -0000

> The 2119 words MUST and MAY are used to signify requirements; although 
> that does imply interoperability as well.  This statement is associated 
> with making the verification code functional, since the verification 
> code represents a signed and typed verification pointer, it must point 
> to something.

I don't understand why.  The code is a signed token.  Imagine the registry 
goes back to the signer asks about token 123-foo666 and the answer is 
"We're the Ministry, we signed it, of course it's valid.  The details are 
secret."

While that would not be my favorite way to work, and I can easily imagine 
other scenarios with auditing and transparency business requirements, why 
wouldn't that interoperate?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly