Subject: RE: TLS for peering (was RE: Comments(RE:[speermint]requirementsdraftsubmitted))

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:46:52 -0400

This whole discussion leads back to the observation that many of these
type of agreements are aspects that ALL SPs may not come to agreement,
but some subset might have agreement.
 
In other words, it is a "federation" policy issue.
 
Mike

________________________________

	From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 6:02 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Cc: 'Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]'; [email-masked]; 'Uzelac, Adam'
	Subject: Re: TLS for peering (was RE:
Comments(RE:[speermint]requirementsdraftsubmitted))

	On Jun 28, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

		Like duh? So what?

		There is real money involved here. 

	There's real money involved in many aspects of Internet
operations.  Life would certainly be better if the gTLD providers did
the right thing by offering secure protocols too, but you don't see them
stampeding to do so.

	The other thing I don't like about the magical TLS pixie dust is
that it does not take into account the fact that there is no root trust
anchor.  Some CAs will sell anybody a cert for $25, some give them away
for FREE.  What's the point of all that additional TLS infrastructure if
it can be easily circumvented by a trust path that leads back to a money
order purchased at a gas station.

	-andy

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint