Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 13 August 2012 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F2D21F86B0; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.602
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibxIH5I3Bl6W; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC19521F86BD; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=test; t=1344849096; bh=MEn5QbKeJM4XlYabG3hXpw4GwEZr0tyiPwskmUMzDFE=; l=1306; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dB079ZnL5FfxVKDACxXI9iPv+dhb05Jead0ALpV3e2xfDjuaqAlY1qtZq1I2ovsaN l0KblhzXGO4c6oSaf0O3TzP4ppdtfYrg0nThIyxFnVSvzp0LEhGWHFnHB8oqyul+Od Jya8sFYbPn8ek7iWihqaGoxgKrtUZ2ZDdz1hmwbU=
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by with ESMTPSA; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:11:36 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000005028C4C8.00000A0A
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:11:36 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf <>, internet users contributing group <>
Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:11:39 -0000

On Mon 13/Aug/2012 03:22:52 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>> On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this
>> area so I can't disagree with the possibility.
> Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly
> disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the
> situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US
> related industries and most probably by every Government (including
> the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon
> market results, about the standards for the people they represent.

FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for official
communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving them legal
standing.  Francesco Gennai presented a brief review of such
procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris.  At the time, John
Klensin suggested that, while a more in-depth review of existing
practices would be appreciated, the ITU is a more suitable body for
the standardization of a unified, compatible protocol for certified
email, because of those governmental involvements.