Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok?

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 7/12/15 8:02 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> Hiya,
>>
>> I'm sure a bunch of you have seen [1] and various reports of
>> potential government silliness that presumably prompted that.
>> So I just re-read RFC1984 [2] and I think it still does a good
>> enough job of setting out the IETF's position on the topic.
>>
>> Since that RFC is almost 20 years old, I thought I'd check on
>> here if folks think anything more needs to be done in the IETF.
>> If there were, then it'd be timely to talk about that in Prague.
>>
>> However, I think we're ok already thanks to RFC1984 but please
>> do say if you think something more needs to be done in the IETF.
> 
> The document is sometimes dismissed as being almost 20 years old, and
> that it does not reflect current consensus among IAB/IESG.

I'm not sure why someone would conclude that. if the consensus position
were elsewhere, we have abundant opportunity to revisit that. The
discussion that lead to RFC 7258 being one such opportunity.

Positions based on principles probably don't require a whole lot of
reconsideration once arrived at. There are not insofar as I as I am
concerned alternatives to working  trustable encryption systems.

>  Revising the
> document (with as little changes as possible) and getting that approved
> again would be useful, in my mind.
> 
> /Simon
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>