Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
ALAIN AINA <aalain@trstech.net> Tue, 14 August 2012 12:22 UTC
Return-Path: <aalain@afribone.trstech.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0F021F8627 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NDMhcosIRYDr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from afribone.trstech.net (afribone.trstech.net [196.200.57.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A1F21F8534 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [80.248.74.18] (helo=[192.168.3.5]) by afribone.trstech.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <aalain@afribone.trstech.net>) id 1T1G8j-0007aj-Cc for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:22:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: ALAIN AINA <aalain@trstech.net>
In-Reply-To: <E521F97C-24C8-4D2E-9471-844FCD69212C@standardstrack.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:21:58 +0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <755EBCEF-6064-4BEB-920F-0FBFB4592BBB@trstech.net>
References: <DF4B6630-8BD1-4BFF-B872-99619B06FCF2@ietf.org> <CAMm+Lwio8=EyW-=LZE8BA4=6N=H4f7a1Nycg25LxB920ceZ6JA@mail.gmail.com> <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+LwjL=tnYrtmHkV+=+VeOCo+1PjAu+pW0LnUyHYhVX_pPZA@mail.gmail.com> <C01C22690CE178AF8C2E52F7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20120813012310.9F01A21F861E@ietfa.amsl.com> <5028C4C8.40508@tana.it> <F2E0F8B862341F3DC407A2DA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <E521F97C-24C8-4D2E-9471-844FCD69212C@standardstrack.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Sender: aalain@afribone.trstech.net
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.248.74.18
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: aalain@afribone.trstech.net
Subject: Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:52:38 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on afribone.trstech.net)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 14 Aug 2012 12:22:36 -0000
I will say "there are potential uses of the ITU for good". --Alain On Aug 14, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Eric Burger wrote: > +1. The ITU is not evil. It just is not the right place for Internet standards development. As John points out, there are potential uses of the ITU-T for good. > > On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:50 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> >> >> --On Monday, August 13, 2012 11:11 +0200 Alessandro Vesely >> <vesely@tana.it> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> 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. >>> >>> [*] >>> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf >> >> Alessandro, >> >> Please be a little careful about context, as your sequence of >> comments above could easily be misleading. >> >> For the very specific case of email certified by third parties, >> especially where there is a requirement for worldwide >> recognition (the topic of the talk and slides you cited), the >> biggest problem has, historically, been an administrative and >> policy one, not a technical standards issue. We know how to >> digitally sign email in several different ways -- there is >> actually no shortage of standards. While additional standards >> are certainly possible, more options in the absence of >> compelling need almost always reduces practical >> interoperability. Perhaps the key question in the certified >> mail matter is who does the certifying and why anyone else >> should pay attention. The thing that makes that question >> complicated was famously described by Jeff Schiller (I believe >> while he was still IETF Security AD) when he suggested that >> someone would need to be insane to issue general-purpose >> certificates that actually certified identity unless they were >> an entity able to invoke sovereign immunity, i.e., a government. >> >> For certified email (or certified postal mail), your ability to >> rely on the certification in, e.g., legal matters ultimately >> depends on your government being willing to say something to you >> like "if you rely on this in the following ways, we will protect >> you from bad consequences if it wasn't reliable or accurate". >> If you want the same relationship with "foreign" mail, you still >> have to rely on your government's assertions since a foreign >> government can't do a thing for you if you get into trouble. >> That, in turn, requires treaties or some sort of bilateral >> agreements between the governments (for postal mail, some of >> that is built into the postal treaties). >> >> International organizations, particularly UN-based ones, can >> serve an important role in arranging such agreements and >> possibly even in being the repository organization for the >> treaties. In the particular case of certified email, the ITU >> could reasonably play that role (although it seems to me that a >> very strong case could be made for having the UPU do it instead >> by building on existing foundations). >> >> But that has nothing to do with the development of technical >> protocol standards. Historical experience with development of >> technical standards by governmental/legislative bodies that then >> try to mandate their use has been almost universally poor and >> has often included ludicrous results. >> >> A similar example arises with the spam problem. There are many >> technical approaches to protecting the end user from spam >> (especially malicious spam) and for facilitating the efforts of >> mail delivery service providers and devices to apply those >> protective mechanisms. Some of them justify technical standards >> that should be worked out in open forums that make their >> decisions on open and technical bases. But, if one wants to >> prevent spam from imposing costs on intended recipients or third >> parties, that becomes largely a law-making and law enforcement >> problem, not a technical one. If countries decide that they >> want to prevent spam from being sent, or to punish the senders, >> a certain amount of international cooperation (bilateral or >> multilaterial) is obviously going to be necessary. As with the >> UPU and email certification, there might be better agencies or >> forums for discussion than the ITU or there might not. But it >> isn't a technical protocol problem that the IETF is going to be >> able to solve or should even try to address, at least without a >> clear and actionable problem statement from those bodies. >> >> I do believe that the ITU can, and should, serve a useful role >> in the modern world. The discussion above (and some of the work >> of the Development and Radio Sectors) are good illustrations. >> But those cases have, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with >> the proposed statement, which is about the development and >> deployment of technical protocol standards. >> >> regards, >> john >> >
- Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm IETF Chair
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm SM
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Eric Burger
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Eggert, Lars
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm SM
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Stephen Farrell
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm GTW
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Noel Chiappa
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm John C Klensin
- RE: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Paul Hoffman
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Tobias Gondrom
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm SM
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Michael Tuexen
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Yoav Nir
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Yoav Nir
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Noel Chiappa
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Scott O Bradner
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Carsten Bormann
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Allison Mankin
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Scott O Bradner
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm SM
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Yoav Nir
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm ALAIN AINA
- Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Par… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Par… John C Klensin
- Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Par… Eric Burger
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Eliot Lear
- Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Par… ALAIN AINA
- Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Par… t.p.
- Re: [iucg] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Par… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm GTW
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Jonne.Soininen
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm IETF Chair
- Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm IETF Chair