Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok?
joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sun, 12 July 2015 18:09 UTC
Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7551A8789 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 TptmPiDDL12K for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 E85CC1A878A for <saag@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local (108-90-41-136.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.90.41.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t6CI9J7h055025 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:09:20 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <55A26484.7050807@cs.tcd.ie> <87fv4ts9l2.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55A2AD49.9080203@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:09:13 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87fv4ts9l2.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gIgVIbmqgrNqNKVqBsrpbF2LjOKd7VVJW"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/BESofjFL64Tj77MGU6v4zNZhKts>
Cc: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok?
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:09:49 -0000
On 7/12/15 8:02 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> 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 > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >
- [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Simon Josefsson
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Ira McDonald
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Yoav Nir
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? joel jaeggli
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Carsten Bormann
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Dave Crocker
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Christian Huitema
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Watson Ladd
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Sam Hartman
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Eliot Lear
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Michael Richardson
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Dave Crocker
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [saag] keys under doormats: is our doormat ok? Stephen Farrell