[tor-project] Rhatto's Monthly Status Report, August 2024

[Syverson, Paul F CIV USN NRL WASHINGTON DC (USA)]

Hi Q,

On 2024-09-06 at 03:06, Q Misell via tor-project wrote:
> Ah yes, that would've been useful to include.
> The ML is at https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/acme@ietf.org/
>
> On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 02:08, Micah Anderson <micah at torproject.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Q - can you give me a pointer to where the working group mailing list
> is, and I'll happily voice support for it.
>
> micah
>
> On 2024-09-03 16:45:59, Q Misell via tor-project wrote:
>>> The ACME for Onions
>>> (https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/ET9hZkhowQILSTGe Internet Draft is
>>> going through the Last Call on the IETF working group!
>>
>> It'd be great if people could voice their support for the draft on
>> the working group mailing list to help get it over the line.

I will be glad to post something if it would be useful.  Though I've
looked at drafts of the RFC before, I hadn't been on the ACME mailing
list.  I've now joined and looked over recent discussion.

The message from Tomofumi Okubo on Aug 16 says that they wanted any
concerns voiced by Aug 28 and otherwise would assume no problems and
put it forward. Would it actually be helpful for someone who just
joined the list to say that they are in support of the draft being
adopted? Or would that actually look odd and be potentially
counterproductive? E.g. potentially cause people to take another
look when they were ready to move it along.

It seems like all the posts since Aug 16 were from insiders or
authoritative folk posting nits mostly about proper use of "should",
"must", "required", etc.

I could simply say that I have read the latest draft, including
responses to the nits raised since Aug 16 and am in favor of adoption.
(And is "adoption" the right word or does that have a technical
meaning in this context?) Would it be better to express such generic
support or would giving more specific reasons for my support be more
helpful?

If something specific about why I support the RFC would be helpful I
could say how I hope this will be adopted soon. There are many
positives, but I am most interested in securing association between
onion addresses and registered domains. There are already thousands of
domains using the current Onion-Location means of association, which
has some security limitations. Facilitating easier obtaining of TLS
certificates for onion addresses would be a helpful for making
significant improvements to the usability and security of onion
association. So I hope adoption of the standard moves that along.

Let me know if any of those options would be helpful (or if not let me
know that too), or give me suggestions if something different would be
more helpful.

SVV,
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/attachments/20240906/ce6cc9e3/attachment.htm>