Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 05:40 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB5521F85F1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtlTSm47-SaP for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a98.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF1F21F85EE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a98.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a98.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260052C206E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc: content-type; q=dns; s=cryptonector.com; b=PSw21A5KC5m/1/HnloF0W DPNaZsB1FcUePbrLReXIlCuuNOpkFp7VzmVNY7zriHGPqch6G4dY1oJ9E/LFuUcR mFOIGpJBQ7TIqmsDzOWNP+nUhpCKEGYYLw6x9UouzgBJFZjcJwZYH+fjeV+sHGD1 i9p1SZPQt7bdmPMHIT7g8w=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=/AL9PKu9oA7bpMx28t6N ac1SoXs=; b=ULsCV+HmTbKqmb/fJhVNZwXzzG4ISqRYwpo8kARZ+J12w7utm+3i JVoak/HKaQJpiVA7tYoO6A1GpeqNJSlqWCSRYQQYW23mWSnNVfyu33mrSnNWXSd4 vidE5+3Obyq6alnlMU/QXFaEuASlQD696mYj4BLqIH8v53FsgZtteR0=
Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a98.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06B732C2058 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dald2 with SMTP id d2so3010289dal.27 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.132.40 with SMTP id or8mr1876725pbb.34.1331703651544; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.28.6 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACwuEiPuvW=DxpwHjcOMs+_T9-4YaBSMB+rm-1LX_nJoswk_qg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F5ADDCA.80303@KingsMountain.com> <CACwuEiPuvW=DxpwHjcOMs+_T9-4YaBSMB+rm-1LX_nJoswk_qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:40:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiQ1=c+Dr56jN02HCzVSUyUaFoLG96Aq=1Ru4sMFdttaA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Walter <walter.stanish@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:40:53 -0000

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Walter <walter.stanish@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All of the above are application-specific, and can be conveyed IMHO over
>> existing specified protocols.
>
> That's true. However, taking that view purely you could similarly
> argue that almost everything is out of IETF scope because IPv4, TCP
> and UDP exist.

Indeed, XMPP, for example, and many other protocols that are
application-specific are standardized here are standardized here.

I think the questions regarding whether to standardize financial
protocols here or not will be the same as with other application
protocols (and sub-IP protocols, for that matter).  Maybe someone more
familiar with past debates on similar issues can give us some
background.  I suspect it will all come down to: how many participants
are willing to work on this, how many are willing to review, whether
there is any running code, whether the wider community can be of help,
and so on.  We should at least consider it.  My fear is that there
isn't enough financial clue at the IETF to help the proponents, but
then, that probably could have been said about the media protocols
too.

Nico
--