IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] [WG ADOPTION] draft-va-sidrops-deploy-reconsidered-01 - ENDS 08/11/2019 (Aug 11)

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl> Sun, 15 September 2019 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024D51200F1 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 05:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 vfF5xUhbWGpq for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 05:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (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 7DBFD1200EC for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 05:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.78] (d207-6-49-52.bchsia.telus.net [207.6.49.52]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CA062A53D; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 14:40:59 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=nlnetlabs.nl
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=tim@nlnetlabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1568551260; bh=7LNH4kEony+g35X/QmG2MzC8xrSnVASOr9hraKmo3og=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=AM52byvHjVze5+nAX8pyUApDG/fovC8ql5Rbq/Do9ZvNsLhcHNBHoWo2O1Kwl9ElV pIHF/a//l1wKG2rZqRtDbcTCqUo8CowQDCMoZCYG0a64yL4KDl2Jkj3Ij+RMN/gFj9 ZGOYSgecG0DY09rbmxG+KM7oGLDOUFp5Miv4dhmU=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7F2CBE00-754C-4E72-9B29-CB1E72848D9E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <2f64752b-40df-892a-5c31-d460f147c264@foobar.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 05:40:54 -0700
Cc: Stephen Kent <stkent=40verizon.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, sidrops@ietf.org
Message-Id: <6062D822-A075-43DC-B7E0-841F824BDF80@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <yj9o7e8bjdaj.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net> <aed96e4a-0ba3-20e3-7412-c7d62cd6d193@foobar.org> <1d35c5cd-7303-3ac5-49c8-87f478a61a4e@verizon.net> <2f64752b-40df-892a-5c31-d460f147c264@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/_Zw2AvwPkpbSjzCEHhSxXfE_a_Q>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [WG ADOPTION] draft-va-sidrops-deploy-reconsidered-01 - ENDS 08/11/2019 (Aug 11)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:41:05 -0000

Hi


> On 14 Sep 2019, at 13:37, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Stephen Kent wrote on 14/09/2019 02:50:
>> CAs are "Certification Authorities", not "Certificate Authorities", if anyone cares.
> 
> it's a bit tragic how few people really understand how the PKI hangs together and the subtleties associated with it :-(


I guess it's a bit like insisting that the whole world should call the metal aluminum, rather than aluminium.. or the other way around for that matter.

See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority>

But anyhow, if it's changed to say Certification Authorities, can we then have a constructive exchange about adoption? I think the real tragedy here is not the use of the term "Certificate Authority"

Tim



> 
> Nick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email