Subject: Re: https at ietf.org Date: Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:11:01PM -0800 Quoting Ned Freed (ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx): > > Subject: Re: https at ietf.org Date: Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:52:45AM -0800 Quoting ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > > > 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. 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. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 I have many CHARTS and DIAGRAMS..
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature