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

[Q Misell]

> 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.

Ah, somehow I missed that the deadline had already passed. That said if
anyone has any major concerns with the draft please do voice them still.
Its better to address them now than try to fix them later.

> Would it be better to express such generic support or would giving more
specific reasons for my support be more helpful?

Generic support is useful at this stage. The draft is - as far as the IETF
is concerned - mostly done, and just saying this is ready is useful.
------------------------------

Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are
not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated.
AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace,
Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company
registered in Wales under № 12417574
<https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>,
LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876
<https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU
VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №:
522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru
maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca
Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT
№: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered
trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468,
respectively.


On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 19:47, Syverson, Paul F CIV USN NRL WASHINGTON DC
(USA) <paul.f.syverson.civ at us.navy.mil> wrote:

> 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/tqLp5tDctXOZLXbP 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/20240910/c28a984a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4640 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/attachments/20240910/c28a984a/attachment.bin>