> 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. 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