Teapot-Chat Adminstrator Council
Request For Comments: 4
Category: Standards Track
Status: Standard
Netizen Land - The Internet
Wael Karram
December 2023
This document
specifies a standards track for the teapot IRC chat network
administrators, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvement.
Distribution of this memo is limited strictly to authorized
network administrators within the teapot chat network or any
third party authorized by them.
Copyright (C) 2023 Teapot Chat Network Administrators. All rights reserved.
This document
describes the process by which an administrator or trusted
user is validated.
Optional and non-binding sections are clearly indicated, all
other sections are assumed automatically binding.
Subject to amendment at a later date.
Table of Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
3
|
1.1. Overview |
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
3
|
1.2. Terminology |
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
3
|
2. Validation Aims |
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
4
|
3. Validation Process |
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
4
|
4. Authors’ Addresses |
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
5
To validate and
verify the identity of a network operator or trusted user,
is also entrusting those doing the validation to be able to
judge the potential risks and hazards of such a process and
what effects it might have on the network.
This document defines rules and regulations for validation
of a network operator or trusted user, be it in the case of
someone losing their credentials or a new operator or
trusted user joining the network.
This document inherits keywords
from RFC 1 through 4, read section 2
"Terminology".
The keywords denoting requirements, including optional
requirements shall be interpreted as is defined in IETF RFC
2119.
The validation
process first and foremost aims to keep access to network
resources and administration within the hands of trusted
parties. If at any stage of the process there is a doubt as
to whether or not the party being validated can be trusted -
then the process should be put on hold pending further
evidence that clears or confirms said doubts.
The process aims to verify whether or not the person is
indeed whom they claim to be and whether or not they can be
entrusted with access to key network infrastructure.
Every aspect of
the validation process shall be recorded in a manner that is
accessible by all other council members to read during and
after said validation. In cases where a proof of identity is
required, cryptographic proof (using cryptosystems such as
GPG) is of utmost importance. Failing that, the
ability to demonstrate reasonably high levels of control
over key resources where no other untrusted third party has
control can be also used as a proxy measure.
All network operators are required to make sure that
they’ve got their keys cross-signed by the other
network operators to make this process simpler and more
secure.
In the case of trusted users, core council members may still
veto the whole motion and effectively render the user unable
to verify - even if it entails de-facto making them lose
access to resources they controlled on the network. This
section does not apply to core council members though.
Authors’ Addresses:
Wael Karram
wael@waelk.tech/wael@teapot.chat