Re: email standards
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 24 September 2014 02:25 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 9BC3C1A8A48 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 KrSxK48Ehrem for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C336F1A8A42 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s8O2PBgB026972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:25:14 -0700
Message-ID: <54222B80.8010502@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:25:04 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Subject: Re: email standards
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> <CAMm+Lwg_+CXGcHmYG_N4swwKb6jOdU6G75kr6FyeU9J2rvNepw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwg_+CXGcHmYG_N4swwKb6jOdU6G75kr6FyeU9J2rvNepw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Gt8KPAjuQ0dzHNuFzZHk_zlwvS4
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:25:18 -0000
On 9/23/2014 2:56 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > The original point was > that we might have done better with a facilitator in the room with There were multiple facilitators in that room, back then. Facilitators cannot help resolve differences in religion or paradigms. And within the IETF sandbox, facilitation for paradigm differences has been tried many other times, such as for network management and routing. It's never been successful and sometimes has made things worse. (Think ASN.1 for SNMP...) >> FWIW, it's unlikely that the competition in this case has had anything >> to do with the poor uptake of either mechanism. ... > In practice the continued standards deadlock is allowing both camps to > put off accepting the fact that they have not succeeded. Competition has often been quite successful. Think SNMP/CMOT again, and various other IETF-based contests. So while your point sounds like reasonable theory, I doubt it has any objective basis, since most discussions about the failure to adopt end2end confidentiality cite barriers in key management and human factors usability (for end users and for sysadmins.) IPv6 "won" long ago, but after 25 years still has only modest uptake. DNSSec stabilized 10-15 years ago, but still has only modest uptake. Competition is not the barrier causing these sorts of adoption problems. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- facilitators at ietf@ietf.org IETF Chair
- Re: facilitators at ietf@ietf.org Phillip Hallam-Baker
- email standards (was: Re: facilitators at ietf@ie… John C Klensin
- Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at iet… Randall Gellens
- Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at iet… Michael Richardson
- Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at iet… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: email standards Dave Crocker
- Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at iet… John C Klensin
- Re: email standards John C Klensin
- Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at iet… Scott Kitterman
- Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at iet… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at iet… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: email standards Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: email standards George Michaelson
- Re: email standards Dave Crocker
- Re: facilitators at ietf@ietf.org IETF Chair
- Re: email standards Jari Arkko
- Re: email standards Nico Williams