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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 25 July 2015 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 BAF921B2E33 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 iNikvtV2q8lj for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8CB1B2E27 for <saag@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC83BE88; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:20:25 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87IEMgytG0Dt; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:20:24 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.17.4.205] (unknown [193.86.243.7]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D94FEBE7B; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:20:23 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1437830424; bh=sWlp9vbCq5aK+PnqpN+1fj10TcCcz9pThmwnurv+MUo=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=brh50/Yo7bA2HDxvcq4CAfmzho9ctKpywd+4OgxEfMl5ysvhWF2kCILshcJoiuO51 Uk/LUnwIyO6yneKdyYTdE6bxk9wFBmKIoFcPs7y4XnhfqFSB69zYZCdopdI5lMUTbr alDXr2oPfidD0Ot/kHYOKwVTFrPLHZ2AYCYR0Eiw=
Message-ID: <55B38D16.7050707@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:20:22 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <55A2AD94.3040604@tzi.org>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/r2MpinmZWoJDGHfRKCMg7wULUTk>
Cc: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "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: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:20:33 -0000

Hiya,

On 12/07/15 19:10, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
> 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.

During the saag session in Prague we asked about this (more when I get
a chance to merge the good meeting notes we got). My conclusion from
that was that there seems to be a reasonable consensus among those who
were there and claimed to understand the issues to do as Carsten
suggests and there was almost no support for revising the text and
issuing a substantive update.

That means we try to upgrade RFC 1984 to BCP status in-place without
changes to the text or the RFC number.

I'm checking with the IESG and IAB to see if this plan causes them
angst and will report back in a week(ish) and take it from there. (So
get ready for, but please don't yet start, the potentially "fun"
process debate about the "C" in BCP - we'll undoubtedly do that in
an IETF last call;-)

Cheers,
S.