Re: [regext] rfc7484bis: https only?

Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Fri, 21 August 2020 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <pk@DENIC.DE>
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 3BEE83A0FA4 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=denic.de
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 IkrFv-gk96ML for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout-b-203.mailbox.org (mout-b-203.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:101:465::203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1172D3A0FA1 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [80.241.60.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mout-b-203.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BY8W80qzczQlJc; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:02:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denic.de; s=MBO0001; t=1598032962; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6mCkuDUz94yGArhKh9LdRoyu3r1qqkndXEI4DT7+xeQ=; b=Ek9L5oMnFeVOR1WKmr5EKxcHGwKdNfzFx7PL2z4UDObFt7RlSjrL3JTmZ7Ga08k0rKtQLZ Vn26vpTM5K5e0gNnL8k/8AVNoWBp2HuXj1S744Hdbvi4RllT5K8ge856BomIi7jj69PxxB /AcqIew68EBM7+NJjvDG8ni0f0vb/N1NcLRSkHRYm0AMT+DpxQXvyaZrrjWJ9+dIPQN4fk OsGGsQ6b5buYZgRQ1BwALkrzjdJs7h6LIAJpa4ZLtwkfd79aQRQYe0jVn0Egj1Nb5lVOTw 2rDD3hz/4fNaopiohi/UHKAFza+djAlL1YoTTmPxXgAixlJr52pbCSc8XNdf/A==
Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.241]) by gerste.heinlein-support.de (gerste.heinlein-support.de [91.198.250.173]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id RmxQExiOK5mC; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:02:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:02:38 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: regext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200821180238.GX14335@denic.de>
Mail-Followup-To: regext@ietf.org
References: <DEB7C82B-A217-47A1-B4D4-FF7421017970@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <DEB7C82B-A217-47A1-B4D4-FF7421017970@viagenie.ca>
X-MBO-SPAM-Probability:
X-Rspamd-Score: -6.21 / 15.00 / 15.00
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0D9AC175A
X-Rspamd-UID: 936add
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/5s_rKphGxtzrCVT20Rm60zz832M>
Subject: Re: [regext] rfc7484bis: https only?
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 18:02:49 -0000

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:26:44PM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote:

>  for the rdap bootstrap registries, there has been (well since the very
> beginning of the work) discussions about only supporting https URLs. I’m
> happy to make it mandatory. Is there a working group agreement on this?
> Please speak up if you don’t agree (i.e. you still want no TLS http).

to a certain extent, this registry is mis-homed anyway, but on this question
in particular I do not think that the IETF is the competent body to make
that (policy) decision.

-Peter