IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Fri, 15 March 2019 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.com>
X-Original-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60286129BBF for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.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 3gUhLeQqYeJr for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73E4130E6F for <bimi@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id f3so7137464wmj.4 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CWDxSmT0NS4hE+3jgYluKMm1QGsP+RHBUCnBOH8B7qk=; b=Z4VKH4GjmXaC9Pe3QvJWkRfVIfk/d5KuKXB+XhjGmaP8tqdtYrJUgf0lVGtpvlbpn0 AxWaweNcvn5szk1uM7Ud9eDt1m/ZhQX2DDIsgNoLGmZlh07k9ilVAe5XDlT/umoRR3TR 1fU2511HGJlE+kKKsPrSzeAVFc462nZ52hajgoU3LuRyO03MM/Zi8Zd9GExy7n4iSGpu gbEv+xb1l5FKiyPyqPeaWUKWxtL4HcNmeMx2r7sV/rBOgnOKhocjNEM1iEIgDfojBGI1 UsE9rT3MC32xEFiRVz5WYEg9SyBH0eoO0126RqsjwPKYkAkF+suDrLXG/ilGUVOVvJpq LGXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CWDxSmT0NS4hE+3jgYluKMm1QGsP+RHBUCnBOH8B7qk=; b=RyKnTJkmr/O4IKJM+8NhzXbv1JQuJYrs6qUynSeXOSb0dQQLkINYOCfWSClpRpXUn+ ouqHoVKJxPQyoAN6P3r3UhVpGS47FOI80HMyJEzDHv+u0eqUZ+qFUiITRywDzYCl4mzU ewQztpQS8ECbEbQMQh/2q8j0yioCGpRJgsOa2/UagUnGleCUguHbIghTXW6ag0xY/rUR wbcJU7WUVHqNI4m4i1CbzSx59UrVdNpJaO0/4GlLg7R1gbJKOzQ8cufBGCc5PslZ5N8J 4VFAxpaXfcw2/3vn2HpFuz1BiTMFOxV05mp9Ga8c/9eIkDlr33SMnqvoWKqui8nnh+Rb dzkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYBv73IJdFfD39pDjblqiRkUAv6vt6nmmJlyXktA8Nc4kjdroJ lXt1Or/XIJ/NScZ5O2HDbYw/8wE9dTMeJpWO3t3EDQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyd8oEr4aTWh6o51LLnh6LGAfutqigk69w0pUSjSa/0iLG6XEhuZgiyYnTsqjVztxAkZRnXLr6qGToTYADKbQ4=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4e05:: with SMTP id g5mr2829747wmh.53.1552666183989; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155229406950.16918.2163707322967420687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOZAAfNe-t_OBevjMh6oZ=9XA4T2H8yRWLW3f3Fd+F40KiEh=A@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1pAtg=PDpDU2A9wvz1RkjWrGfDz4spLx_o6tBCkn1VyMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1pAtg=PDpDU2A9wvz1RkjWrGfDz4spLx_o6tBCkn1VyMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:09:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfOKm=NO4w=GwgxMLcqYKkkHgh00NSd5spFBs-5tp=QH_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <kurta+ietf@drkurt.com>
Cc: bimi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005a372c058424449b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/0-Cxw9yoZ85GJJkMfypl8sKm0xE>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00
X-BeenThere: bimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Brand Indicators for Message Identification <bimi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bimi/>
List-Post: <mailto:bimi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:09:48 -0000

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:06 PM Kurt Andersen (IETF) <kurta+ietf@drkurt.com>
wrote:

> In section 3, the opening sentence refers to benefits for senders and
> recipients. I think it should also identify that there are potential
> benefits to receivers and operators of MUAs too.
>

Excellent point.


> In section 3.1, there is a reference to "changes the secret handshake". I
> think that the point of having a public standard is that the crucial change
> is to make is a non-secret handshake. I appreciate that this is qualified
> with "if implemented poorly", but that should perhaps be changed to "if
> specified poorly (or obscurely)".
>

Do the current drafts present a framework that clears the bar? Opinions
differ, but there's a reasonable argument that the bar is still only
clearable if you're a large US/EU organization, and the goal of being
approachable to all domain owners has not yet been met. This is a crucial
question for the BoF.

Seth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email