Re: [Bimi] (non)desire for bimi

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 18 February 2019 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 067A1130F03 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:50:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 ZnLRkDwYuSyN for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 3B75C130EE2 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id x1I2pgkB009622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:51:42 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1550458303; bh=0NFzRkY1u/+YGIAra2tBQ4GB6gSgtAz10N4jwUgzxSM=; h=From:Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=neiocULLmPW6winGzMA7gWalnPKWOLzYxOEChOan/E43ndPUP0PGO2WU+IYCcZg1u vWwvxKlZ/Sjp01SrDmZa147JeMv5biQ0THJyIAmoLmdjq1+q1Ycr8iSAEcOQ6QER0g uv4afU5fA/adqEgsgqAExGcTAf1j89SCCuGagBLw=
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: Thede Loder <thede@skyelogicworks.com>
References: <aa919aeb-caa1-6494-259d-a553b238c268@cs.tcd.ie> <3d9231e9-6936-cc02-000e-a4d7df919bb4@andreasschulze.de> <CAAYvrBvGediUY1W9PZ+JuS585Mk8wxLpFq7TZELSOF-NSp5CyQ@mail.gmail.com> <5c7a10e3-47a0-e84a-d78a-dea5c44fb2ae@dcrocker.net> <CAAYvrBumzJrj51VdOYEf_Tmo4X-MhvfuabWHb_p5embAe0uAow@mail.gmail.com> <0245cd12-2965-86ca-78e4-b3b1996e6efe@gmail.com> <A08D52DA-AC05-4A6A-BF9C-AEF2239E8F61@skyelogicworks.com>
Cc: bimi@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Marcel Becker <marcel.becker@oath.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <6ac6da1c-6c60-b983-7e1a-90d3fb30ac5b@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 18:50:08 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A08D52DA-AC05-4A6A-BF9C-AEF2239E8F61@skyelogicworks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/Z-5UNDD0OD34z29HZmdF9xrL1ow>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] (non)desire for bimi
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: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:50:29 -0000

On 2/17/2019 5:55 PM, Thede Loder wrote:
> If end users treat messages with or without logos exactly the same, through what means will end users be made worse off or less safe when BIMI-sourced logos are widely used?


Thede,

This line of logic implies that the only valid argument against doing a 
standard is demonstrable proof that it will do harm.

Besides that basic flaw in the implied foundation of your question, 
others have noted a variety of concerns both larger strategic 
opportunity cost and narrow, increased security exposures, and, of 
course, plausible misuse.

There is also the concern for the cost of doing a standard; they are 
extremely expensive.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net