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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 26 November 2015 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 0A1BF1B3B45; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] 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 Dmx7fox8tzkT; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 4CF051B3B36; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3p63KX0gHVz20q; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:44:00 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=Hlw29qdS
X-OPENPGPKEY: Message passed unmodified
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vcmMAlwMHMnF; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:43:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:43:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9CA680096; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:43:57 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1448552637; bh=zxZljZwcXr0ZQmrP0yXk6sHR02Jo675aCB/PI2h1lnI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Hlw29qdSGwruX67Q4KI9EWDb7uNKRmuAZblT9ROLK0e0OS3RrDo6xxmvu9gEQUxCz 9UCwBV/f5zY5HAaC8URvKRR+VoV2PJtXTMWIjfXnRJG8jk9YrSYW55BsT21iXldOaB MTCxm+S415E5+Uil+yUcgTYphO2Spzb1WAo39+T4=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id tAQFhvAP013615; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:43:57 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:43:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <942C4EAB-5714-4818-BD98-834AF3B4FE43@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1511261043180.8897@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <22102.64756.382780.262773@fireball.acr.fi> <942C4EAB-5714-4818-BD98-834AF3B4FE43@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LFD 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/c6pQKsEKD3jKSV7zzOfZJuWPpYE>
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 15:44:05 -0000

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Yoav Nir wrote:

>> 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.

Please people! We are _all_ individuals!

Paul