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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 06 March 2018 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 95749124319 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:39:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 emtCTd57HR-a for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 9F8F21201F2 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.57] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w26MdDYV025252 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:39:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [10.32.60.57]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Richard Barnes" <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: spasm@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:39:41 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <D3A721DD-F449-4F8E-912D-4BA7CAB03442@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgSwVRpCW=m3-JMdGQhi8ezZ-+PO3dPjJ5P7BmpemyRsow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <863b6e71-c179-3856-9edf-28e8306031e4@tycho.ncsc.mil> <ABF94A28-87F1-40D3-942C-1CE2C5EEFF92@vpnc.org> <CAL02cgSwVRpCW=m3-JMdGQhi8ezZ-+PO3dPjJ5P7BmpemyRsow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/vHyctknr591vecFD4E2ezTcb2m0>
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 22:39:45 -0000

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?

--Paul Hoffman