Re: [art] Need some more feedback on httpi draft

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Thu, 26 July 2018 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBCD131198 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0qTeL8SZYsW8 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD9C6130EAC for <art@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QVBLEULK7400065J@mauve.mrochek.com> for art@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1532620042; bh=7ssCp5IDdc14WwKDOkIa6ivmVU2sHEiGYl6CfATX+NM=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=jEPbZtgkr2oujnJYddo58nG7gZHI5UBoGM2TQkm3OD0yW+sz9ggMuGe7rfHJyTCYn u5udyDa+b14AkW7tIGSTBR7RRsG2F+x6DkJup69tJIRp6OQAWA9+xo2rWMckU1Axbr I7WS6Faq0xA6WCXwBi2eJUxdV4RFzPIiFsLHNBf0=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QVAGSPT5EO0002TJ@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: art@ietf.org, pradeep@explodingmoon.org
Message-id: <01QVBLET1D4Q0002TJ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:18:20 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:41:38 -0400" <20180726144138.C6F6D2002D9C7C@ary.qy>
References: <20180726032617.Horde.Lbs3jBh8t8i13_hcsVTLDFR@box439.bluehost.com> <20180726144138.C6F6D2002D9C7C@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/6IWjtIkFAdvwZ2D-TEhaDzlc8IU>
Subject: Re: [art] Need some more feedback on httpi draft
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:48:38 -0000

> In article <20180726032617.Horde.Lbs3jBh8t8i13_hcsVTLDFR@box439.bluehost.com> you write:
> >
> >I have made changes to the draft taking feedback from valdis i need some more
> >feedback from few others if possible
> >
> >https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer-00.txt

> The structure of WHOIS is managed by ICANN for the generic TLDs, by
> the individual countries for ccTLDs, and by the RIRs for IP addresses.

> This isn't in scope for the IETF.

+1 as far as existing whois services go. Of course people are free to create
additional services that allow people to register their email addresses, but
(a) Not sure what the business model would be and (b) This is, again, not a
standards matter.

As for creating a new Internet-level federated service, this is what X.500 was
supposed to do - it was called, rather grandiosly, The Directory.

A couple of pilot projects were attempted. All of them failed, mostly because
essentially nobody was willing to put their directory of addresses online.

And all this was back when privacy concerns were, if anything, an afterthought.
These days the potential liability created by new laws make this idea
completely impractical.

tl;dr: This is a nonstarter.

				Ned