Re: [lamps] Request for review of revised RFC 5759

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 06 March 2018 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128A0126C0F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:02:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 479oq63IVncc for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22f.google.com (mail-wr0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22f]) (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 9D8BB12008A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v111so290964wrb.3 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:02:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ai92S9BpI3Au5cPnHzGMgVbR0ZxJU3Yxq0e7X7VZW4s=; b=B4+4pZHhSJTQxVBwrhKvM6kzYCs5zFZoREnXst+B7eEQapjCP0yvVVSCMZju5Zph+2 zMAVqh9pdrG2BvRM52H+Y6XiqK0b2Uw+zLWxe/ZL6K8LChyJ4kOgzfUEnuJr3F2NJOh1 BdjX0Mzr9PLTTf5GyK6+nRYP+b4H1Ocwupxh53v2leAi1/xk5KHH/wt+EvhKWXPenqqa 6IpXBvKGeHOJoY9rd5xREPjRrNyIy6X9SXBJjD5TuGw+Q1bZlKW5OKkIaphtb2FA7XgU ER/RIFT1XGz7KO2cHXd7qXHjDkD4VPaGd1X9M71kGlWBsYPIQwPQqCSajNbFurxu24G3 AuIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ai92S9BpI3Au5cPnHzGMgVbR0ZxJU3Yxq0e7X7VZW4s=; b=S6nF1mM8kjPXIv9xJmo+l8OQMplJK0Bu4x33Tf1H4XDoy2UUEOzlAbmr6YR6SeDRcq 1hCrRp50vOkgy2i6GW4+s0xYnFtrfWhho4GmHKfYaNMxTPvxPWTD0R2QzIaeZ2u32fuD 9m+UIsVn8H5Lxw9ndXBcl0aCkI900NOWFexaF7R7k3Jwo06uXJL1Gm1wqO2DUtTwbg+l 0+lDh8pGTztnBjH/RbBEcNv79VQDoNUAZNCocCtLnU58WHMnlFWSn+jULf0YsagY0U08 H/6R1NF7WRsufqvIRXWVloZfOanE4W58YlslWe/mkFPAVMVXzD1o2MGUloA2+WOqOtYm 7mrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPD995KLgKCQxq0h/sWkwCVQyL9hWhJZFM/mh1J38JsmOTYFM3LW Vk0RRqstg13v992PtOP2cp0XfAzT+WvXFIHcVtE5M1o3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsds348Yku7UpIR+anLp9J7fkYx+55vRfcfeSzqXU+L/6vLd9ebEMctdrtc43JiEXjlOtR6sYPm401sRIRk56o=
X-Received: by 10.223.225.6 with SMTP id d6mr15711467wri.128.1520377369316; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:02:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.12.140 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.28.12.140 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:02:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D3A721DD-F449-4F8E-912D-4BA7CAB03442@vpnc.org>
References: <863b6e71-c179-3856-9edf-28e8306031e4@tycho.ncsc.mil> <ABF94A28-87F1-40D3-942C-1CE2C5EEFF92@vpnc.org> <CAL02cgSwVRpCW=m3-JMdGQhi8ezZ-+PO3dPjJ5P7BmpemyRsow@mail.gmail.com> <D3A721DD-F449-4F8E-912D-4BA7CAB03442@vpnc.org>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 18:02:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgT0S9+2O_Oos2Ai2rdrZYM9TQ-Rxf7yA84gt6cBOnF5Og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: spasm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e80efdd805e2530566c67146"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/2Bsoy6LsH5KsFotSGz4U4osD8VM>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Request for review of revised RFC 5759
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 23:02:53 -0000

On Mar 6, 2018 17:39, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

On 6 Mar 2018, at 13:48, Richard Barnes wrote:

Should we also stop accepting references that are only available over
> "http://" URLs?
>

No. Those URLs do not impede reading by developers.


I might not object to that, but seems silly to do one of these things and
> not the other.
>

Why is it "silly" to object to a URL that I literally cannot read without
reducing the security of my browser?


The reduction in security from allowing an unknown cert for a single site
(which is what your browser does; it doesn't wholesale add the CA without a
bunch more effort) is no more than the reduction in security from visiting
a non-HTTPS URL.  Arguably less.

--Richard



--Paul Hoffman