0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or not)

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 1B1BB1AE167 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:30:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 fuKqEylTQO_q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1371AE155 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:30:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2262; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386084628; x=1387294228; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=WXKjcvNS4cAy8obITTvmwL8k4u6yu9JAmCGzY4LBOKI=; b=HnsuA+QsBMvbzA2S2MUKYNU5DwG2bSCyUp9cIeI9szjKKWOp0Rd4iCyB LGPTHTx8Cm48JPE2ERNiroKLiRJhYUGL5Cwzwa8+D4F09rWY+TNcoHIFY 2g1bX08RNKapZox8gP8qlDUzZYv837c7sD6qXP57zCVzn7HbK//Hm/3Ky 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkcFAMn4nVKQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABagweEBYVcsBGBGxZ0giUBAQEEI1UBEA8BEwkWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEHAQGHfbEgkEAXjhwRAVAHgmuBSAOYFJITgyk8gTU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,818,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="1613000"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2013 15:30:27 +0000
Received: from dhcp-lon06-vla300-10-148-88-192.cisco.com (dhcp-lon06-vla300-10-148-88-192.cisco.com [10.148.88.192]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB3FULu9019387 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:30:23 GMT
Message-ID: <529DF90D.3030908@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:30:21 +0000
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: 0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or not)
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EF1B8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <D45703FF-109A-4FFF-92E9-1CC7767C52F7@nominum.com> <CAP+FsNc=cGhOJNTwXY1z-5ZjisOOvX=EOYEf3htGXGcWRKBf6g@mail.gmail.com> <529CF5F1.9000106@dcrocker.net> <CAMm+LwjCvzDgWTi9mqgvWCoCyRhB+4c8QoaaPQtk=xkBcXMtZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjCvzDgWTi9mqgvWCoCyRhB+4c8QoaaPQtk=xkBcXMtZA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030201060704030709070907"
Cc: IETF Discussion <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, 03 Dec 2013 15:30:33 -0000

On 12/3/13 12:46 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> And twenty years later the market still hasn't decided between S/MIME
> and PGP.
>

I agree with Jim that having two standards in this space has mattered
not one bit.  There are many reasons why email simply isn't encrypted. 
First, it's hard to get a key.  Second, those who are in a position to
simply dole them out don't as it provides no value to them.  Third,
there is no deployed directory infrastructure to find someone else's
key.  Forth, if there was one, it would result in defeating of common
anti-spam/anti-malware tools.

Eliot