IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: email standards

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 23 September 2014 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDD91A88E0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.386
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
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 wVZgeObQ2pZm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 730291A88BD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1XWX3M-0002Q0-BA; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:51:16 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:51:11 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Subject: Re: email standards
Message-ID: <27AF7A91BAA5D8D0FDC7163C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <5421D7A2.8030309@dcrocker.net>
References: <E6D4B18F-9533-4EE1-A794-526094893D3C@ietf.org> <CAMm+Lwi8D0c_iWSbosXFrGsN1wtcmwu3oRc7FoQmwypk7Mi2ZA@mail.gmail.com> <2A9E2BF1C15CB41544C46E06@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <p06240607d0476c96a946@99.111.97.136> <CAMm+LwjxOiFsWcCZoGcaqaF3fv6XBOK8LhQdzWJsigYvQQ4-kg@mail.gmail.com> <5421D7A2.8030309@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3uWVPwIypKByWh5F8eRKOwQKY5M
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:51:22 -0000

In case it is not clear, I believe that my recent note and
Dave's (partially quoted below) represent complete agreement.
That might be notable because this is one of the spaces in which
we often disagree.

    john


--On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 13:27 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 9/23/2014 1:08 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> I meant two secure email standards. Empirically we have two
>> right now, S/MIME and PGP.
>> 
>> Since I was talking about security, I thought it was obvious
>> from the context.
> 
> 
> It wasn't.
> 
> And to be thorough, you also forgot PEM...
> 
> 
> Anyhow, sometimes we need to let competitive efforts develop
> and then let the market choose among them.  Artificially
> stifling serious constituenies from pursuing credible
> alternatives is often poor engineering and worse politics.
>...
> FWIW, it's unlikely that the competition in this case has had
> anything to do with the poor uptake of either mechanism.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email