Re: [wpkops] [T17Q11] SV: [pkix] X.509 whitelist proposal

Tony Rutkowski <trutkowski@netmagic.com> Fri, 18 July 2014 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <trutkowski@netmagic.com>
X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70DE1B2990; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 0VXhJlUMSQBO; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 05:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net (vms173019pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F661B2995; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 05:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.51] ([unknown] [71.171.106.160]) by vms173019.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0N8W00LWZPTY4X40@vms173019.mailsrvcs.net>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:10:51 -0500 (CDT)
Message-id: <53C90EC4.1070006@netmagic.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 08:10:44 -0400
From: Tony Rutkowski <trutkowski@netmagic.com>
Organization: Netmagic Associates
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-version: 1.0
To: Erik Andersen <era@x500.eu>, tony@yaanatech.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
References: <000b01cfa1bc$b6872ef0$23958cd0$@x500.eu> <53C85314.3040102@yaanatech.com> <003301cfa26b$039c77a0$0ad566e0$@x500.eu>
In-reply-to: <003301cfa26b$039c77a0$0ad566e0$@x500.eu>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=------------030708050608020905010407
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpkops/Vm75SR85E91iY6muzSNT4U9d2W4
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 05:15:44 -0700
Cc: pkix@ietf.org, wpkops@ietf.org, SG17-Q11 <T13sg17q11@lists.itu.int>
Subject: Re: [wpkops] [T17Q11] SV: [pkix] X.509 whitelist proposal
X-BeenThere: wpkops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: trutkowski@netmagic.com
List-Id: <wpkops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wpkops/>
List-Post: <mailto:wpkops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:11:06 -0000

Hi Erik,

You have been participating long enough in the ITU-T
to know that it is an intergovernmental body, and one
cannot simply create a contribution using a Member
nation's name - even if you are a citizen - because
you don't like the "red tape."  It is the Danish
Administration - the Ministry of Business and
Growth - that gets to make submissions for
Denmark, not you.

Denmark ten years ago reduced its ITU financial
contribution by more than a half, and has not
submitted a document into the ITU-T since at
least 2001.  It thus seems unlikely this will occur.

You now say that "the proposal has been submitted
to that group [IEC TC57 WG15} for comments," whereas
your previous message said it "has requested the
inclusion of whitelist support in X.509."

I don't mean to be harsh or difficult here, but your
proposal is far reaching with profound effects on
X.509/PKI communities and implementations.  This
material also appears to be your own personal
proposal with no other apparent support.  You
should be proceeding to get reactions and support
from others on your ideas before attributing them
to a Member State or using your position as Q11/17
rapporteur to advance them.

--tony

On 2014-07-18 5:31 AM, Erik Andersen wrote:
>
> There is some pressure by the major electricity company 
> (http://energinet.dk/EN/Sider/default.aspx)  to make me the Danish 
> Member representative in ITU-T SG17. It takes a lot of red tape. I am 
> also active in IEC TC57 WG15. As I mentioned, the proposal has been 
> submitted to that group for comments.
>