Subject: Re: https at ietf.org Date: Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:11:01PM -0800
Quoting Ned Freed (ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com):
Subject: Re: https at ietf.org Date: Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:52:45AM
-0800 Quoting ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com
(ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com):
Encouraging the use of our work - our standards - is exactly the issue
here.
You're trying to impose privacy requirements on a use-case where they
simply
don't make sense.
Given this years revelations in the privacy field that is a statement I
find slightly bold.
You'll have to explain the connection then, because I don't see it. We're
talking about refusing to allow unprotected access to public standards
documents. That's the use-case in question; nothing else.
Since it is perfectly innocent to perform this fetching, the Government(s)
need not be privy to this -- and we should encrypt.
That's a strawman. Nobody has any problem with saying we SHOULD encrypt. The
problem I and others have is saying we MUST encrypt.
The trust that the
Government(s) will only tap the traffic of those that are a grave concern
to their security interests has completely vanished.
That doesn't trump the need for access to our materials to be as open as
possible.
Ned