Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 21 Jul 2020, at 22:53, Dave Crocker wrote:

> When someone makes a claim like that, they need to document it.  
> Nothing in this thread has done anything like documenting the 
> existence of an operational problem.

Yep, I think that's what led several of us to ask, "What exactly is the 
problem?" People are implying that there's some sort of operational 
problem, but nobody's saying what it is.

And I agree that it is using quite a bit of unnecessary energy.

> People continue to love ASs, but my impression is that they have no 
> field utility.

I think it's worth a discussion here, or in the BOF, of what's meant by 
an "Applicability Statement" in this context, because people use that 
term very loosely. My sense is that it is not meant to be a "problem 
statement" or a "technology review" or a "requirements document" (as 
people often intend "AS"), but rather a document giving a description of 
how the protocol pieces are used together in the real world, with a bit 
of operational guidance and some solid terminology. Perhaps "AS" is the 
wrong term, but I think what the charter describes would be useful. We 
should probably work out both what would be useful, and what to call it 
to avoid confusion.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best