IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 27 December 2018 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 2B479130E2F for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:58:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, 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=n2AOd+c/; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=tZ723Hsk
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 uYrH55rvaii9 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:58:53 -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 8B96112870E for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:58:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 97007 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2018 02:58:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=17aed.5c243feb.k1812; bh=GdTtzEqG1uAFls4juSnuPu1gQtHiNm1a3NZdyJAKEdU=; b=n2AOd+c/vigWubKcWM6WI+tbXmme0up7nIPrK1VXawLD/E6SgNmtFywXQ6PKe7bT8X7Wbu30KIxzbZ322I27ZqLb0Dl9iKOJIVt6sI/y/scajlOnM3oqTITssbBTo0aP4xAGkfAW6jmoACh2cFJfr0Iz0AenTLtDZ8kbJ31o09GtyC+AlDVYyOIjDRnMgp8TTq2Xeqql5ZewYTo8xVj7Os2Z4ATVmYOrXpGsqxEm8vl9rVByDWS6iRhCjNF93kJS
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=17aed.5c243feb.k1812; bh=GdTtzEqG1uAFls4juSnuPu1gQtHiNm1a3NZdyJAKEdU=; b=tZ723HskIgwwupaMLtfS7JRf50890efiG3/0ARdpfjCffbIGjTzKRLmbJcdPUPM/IcP0/8i9F2G/xccTZYF3/LhD8JnTriuP1wP/LhdeyJ42wW35wloice5pgndlGQG3jqWA1BfALdXm6okqWisJOXoXi4Qz9nbmuPeMwDLwt6J3Hxxc2HD7LmHGroA+g2vWU+MIvgeC57/bG0Dd7BLJtodeS2BWiKM+ECL9rk+LbKpXYn1oZCtdY7axuchQ6+3i
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 27 Dec 2018 02:58:51 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id E764E200BF534F; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 21:58:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 21:58:50 -0500
Message-Id: <20181227025850.E764E200BF534F@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: regext@ietf.org
Cc: jgould@verisign.com
In-Reply-To: <E8B4732B-CF66-4257-A418-6EB3FB8487E3@verisign.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/93TD-l8XF0bcsRj1HNlj-rUscfo>
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: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 02:58:59 -0000

In article <E8B4732B-CF66-4257-A418-6EB3FB8487E3@verisign.com> you write:
>Do others in the working group believe that either the verification process of the VSP is in scope
>based on the current wording of the draft or that a consideration section can cover something that
>is outside the defined scope of the draft?

Heck, no.  They have nothing to do with ensuring interoperability, and
nothing I can see to do with any plausible use of this extension.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email