Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04.txt

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 November 2015 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AA81B2B7F; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:53:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qrztOrOVSxfH; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B882C1B2B7E; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so20421713wmw.1; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:53:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7LMLkvXGO/7ukX/xsqqasuOrZqn9S8OHNND3OF39ZMg=; b=nnB6ao6b05vbSpUYyiX6iWiIWQAaOOYQ8LsopQwwKgYspK7ElIVRWbDJPVSP9dRAXI 5ECpJ75WECGrdD3YTEwqua6IcfBPKAeFRZTRE0MKHkEl3ZN+D5llsB+WDmIUJGXYEDRj CwrujigPMexz6fwB1ScEdMjSrLmE4kHguN/gysGFh7Gqv19MV8dt7rMIXEvONiMLtSl4 20ChnqH0vG86ScLFQZcPNlpGXXUDfi+eaIs+vDIVqbg5cCTk1JxZmlzYol554ky4bHZX xSzAbZklcPwzEQySWzspjtDBTILNYAA0fajBmYqjqec2DKKqROafUNVYtt6fcKhAMFu7 BvHw==
X-Received: by 10.28.97.197 with SMTP id v188mr3757876wmb.63.1448542414293; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.251.173] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q1sm27890900wje.39.2015.11.26.04.53.32 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:53:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <22102.64756.382780.262773@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:53:31 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <942C4EAB-5714-4818-BD98-834AF3B4FE43@gmail.com>
References: <22102.64756.382780.262773@fireball.acr.fi>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/atmZNmJthmK_S_uLhJGvJcnMqu0>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:53:37 -0000

> On 26 Nov 2015, at 2:37 PM, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> This documents adds new status code 451 which says that document is
> unavailable for legal reasons. It correctly points out that some
> entities blocking access might not want to tell that they are blocking
> this, so clients cannot rely on this, and also points out that users
> might be able to bypass the restrictions using VPNs or TORs.
> 
> Summary: Ready.
> 
> I just wonder why did the example singled out "the People's Front of
> Judea", and did not include "the Judean People's Front", "the Judean
> Popular People's Front", "the Campaign for a Free Galilee", and "the
> Popular Front of Judea".... :-)

Because the only people we hate more than the Romans, are the fucking Judean People's Front.