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

["John R Levine" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Adam Roach wrote:
>>  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?
>
> If we're concerned merely with interoperation, the same is true of most -- 
> if not all -- normative keywords used in "Security Considerations" sections. 
> Your position might (or might not) be correct, but the logic of "2119 
> language is only used for interoperabilty reasons" simply isn't true.

I think there's a difference -- in security sections the goal is usually 
to prevent leakage or spoofing or something else that would allow a 
malicious party to interoperate with a victim.  One part of good interop 
is not to interoperate with attackers.  But that's not what's going on 
here.  The signature shows that the token is valid, and unless I'm missing 
something, whatever you might learn from the thing the token represents is 
outside the scope of EPP.

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