Subject: [saag] fwd: Document Action: 'Opportunistic Security: Some Protection Most of the Time' to Informational RFC (draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-06.txt)

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:42:50 -0800

Subject: Document Action: 'Opportunistic Security: Some Protection Most of 
the Time' to Informational RFC
  (draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-06.txt)
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:22:20 -0800
To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
Cc: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Opportunistic Security: Some Protection Most of the Time'
   (draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-06.txt) as Informational RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Stephen Farrell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security/

Technical Summary

    This document defines the concept "Opportunistic Security" in the
    context of communications protocols.  Protocol designs based on
    Opportunistic Security remove barriers to the widespread use of
    encryption on the Internet by using encryption even when
    authentication is not available, and using authentication when

Working Group Summary

    This is an AD sponsored document and not the product of
    a WG. It was extensively debated on the saag list and during
    an extended IETF LC. The concept was also debated at
    the STRINT workshop.

    The shepherd write-up has more to say:

    "The document and its predecessors were discussed with great
     gusto over many months on the SAAG mailing list, in the UTA WG,
     and at two IETF meetings. There is a great deal of interest in
     having a common set of definitions for the ideas related ot
     opportunistic security, even where there might be disagreement
     about where it should and should not be used.

     The IETF Last Call on the -03 draft produced a lot of suggestions
     for major improvements to the language in the draft, and the author
     did a significant revision based on them, all without changing the
     design philosophy. There are probably still some people who think
     that the wording is not what they would want, and some who think
     that the whole idea is a bad one, but there was rough consensus
     that the document was useful and should be published.

     The document has had more review, and ended up getting stronger
     consensus for the eventual definition, than the products of many
     security WGs. Because this document does not define how to
     implement opportunistic security, there is some disagreement about
     its applicability to existing and future IETF protocols, but there was
     strong agreement that the definition was good enough for many
     protocols."

   This underwent an extended LC after work to develop -05 based
   on IESG and other feedback on -04.

Document Quality

    One would not directly implement this as its a design pattern.
    There are Internet-drafts that are using this already in DANE,
    HTTPBIS and some individual drafts.

Personnel

    Paul Hoffman is the document shepherd.
    Stephen Farrell is the irresponsible AD.

IANA Note

   There is no IANA considerations section, and none is needed
   in this case.