IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 13 July 2015 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 517731B2CB5 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 PTxW8c56E2Pm for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16CEE1B2C8B for <saag@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D78203B6 for <saag@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1AA0063AEC; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:43:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F397C63AD9 for <saag@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:43:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <55A2AD94.3040604@tzi.org>
References: <55A26484.7050807@cs.tcd.ie> <87fv4ts9l2.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <C64F2343-6937-44EB-BBA6-6D744BBC79A1@vpnc.org> <CAN40gSui7XrVtuZHLOyGs09ZJc5d20SN9AB4Ftnmav7z-tCW=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGvU-a7CocoadpHP0f+_JCctfVG6y4Qtn0Cu_v9UxKNh=4+ajg@mail.gmail.com> <55A2AD94.3040604@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:43:09 -0400
Message-ID: <18762.1436809389@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/N5a18l1UKo-FJq4k1ZV9iUnt0yI>
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: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:43:18 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> I disagree. Publishing an update signals that our opinion has evolved.
    >> It hasn't, even if the technology has evolved to make software the focus
    >> rather than hardware. Besides, this kind of document is a huge rathole,
    >> and I don't believe any minimal changes would be worth the hassle.

    > I completely agree.

    > Just as we elevated RFC 20 to STD, we could still elevate it to BCP -- a
    > status that, IIRC, was just becoming available at the time RFC 1984 was
    > published.

I agree that this is the right action.
Maybe it should be BCP1984 :-)


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email