IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> Tue, 03 December 2013 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <gettysjim@gmail.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 161E91AE15F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:15:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 8zKHmxwzAgkq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:15:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BE01AE12A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:15:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x13so13639315wgg.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:15:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aodAedAKeVeiQcRcbtJ7K2pC/8pY011RuHSgm2xDsAs=; b=UCdaHm6zlV9KTq8wXfjKvp2vP64q7/peplyx8wyLHkJBGZIY5fA5Y0ymPuNkAmLPxK q7bRu5UeAa94vZIDgfKQpQqY8ixe6f6N4tAKMU/9qSduk+XPpaKHgrsnFq8hslR8448U 3xTVd21oH6ugTR5YSpUTkLmsevImfvJZUhLLP3XSkpwB+rd0rmQ5OLapyqDUouAPcu+a yt45UeRyiPzHsxZfx+RUDIC4YJjnnuuat8bWpi5AmWoupFXI+JQw8Mr6d9zKlPpmxcT5 RV+FsoCwF1WL9RAYABnIGFdd1eC5Ear9tc1DQIIcQ5WyQPOtsM8HjcZVdZAkgdAVv5J2 oYFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.195.13.164 with SMTP id ez4mr59701042wjd.11.1386083722225; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Sender: gettysjim@gmail.com
Received: by 10.227.198.66 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:15:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <74FD1382-D5B0-4C70-9AD5-D92150D784AD@standardstrack.com>
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> <98962934-340C-400C-AB30-573C52D13F61@nominum.com> <74FD1382-D5B0-4C70-9AD5-D92150D784AD@standardstrack.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:15:22 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: XbluFf9ir_Oz-OGYA09cFx9RVBM
Message-ID: <CAGhGL2AK2QhNEoahSrFepzcsY9DHsW4Hbk-Kkv1-+gftOCSFSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb04f68e46ef104eca2c3de"
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 15:15:27 -0000

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>wrote:

> Agreed. The problem is not that people cannot choose between S/MIME or
> PGP. The problem is few people use anything.
>

Both fail the usability by mere mortals test, much less the usable by most
geeks test...  So the experiment is meaningless.
                      - Jim


>
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> And twenty years later the market still hasn't decided between S/MIME
> and PGP.
> >> Or maybe it has decided none of the above.
> >
> > S/MIME has wide implementation, but little deployment.   PGP has little
> implementation and little deployment.   I think the what the market has
> said is "we don't really care about this."
> >
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email