Re: Scope for self-destructing email?
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 18:05 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 4D72D13235B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NlvtyulOASuQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BC8513237B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1di2hG-000GmG-7p; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:05:38 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:05:31 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, vaibhav singh <vaibhavsinghacads@gmail.com>
cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Scope for self-destructing email?
Message-ID: <FE2E639B0F0F8D272F1339E2@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAAQh64M59g0Jn=2j0czS6q56-yoOadGMoeVMTZ=4Z72Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACZ1GipivEf31iHchaM1OPFQF4QkfVRGVNsY_vVx=J8oFZ0JZA@mail.gmail.com> <b1289123-04ac-e62b-879e-614fae9b20b0@bogus.com> <CACZ1GiooBdEZ_YcBZPQNFkbT0DsGf-Cu25fPYzWcLamLUAH+TA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAAQh64M59g0Jn=2j0czS6q56-yoOadGMoeVMTZ=4Z72Q@mail.gmail.c om>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ItmTeYWC2zmoyAYrFRyIAcIo7pY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 16 Aug 2017 18:05:41 -0000
--On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 09:49 -0700 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:50 PM, vaibhav singh > <vaibhavsinghacads@gmail.com> wrote: >... >> *why not try to accommodate both realitys and define a >> feature which is called "Invalidation of Messages" or similar >> instead of "Destructible Messages". The goal of this feature >> should be to mark messages in a way, that the client somehow >> can mark the message as "not being relevant anymore" or >> something like that. >... > I think there are two potential lines of development here, > though I confess I am skeptical of the value of either. > The first is providing a facility that declares a particular > message to be automatically overcome by events at a particular > time, leaving it completely up to the recipient how to process > the message based on that metadata. There are simple message > types (today's weather, lunch availability, etc.) that could > be thus set to be marked OBE when no longer relevant. Some > clients might choose to auto-delete them or auto-archive them > when the time is reached, but this would be because of their > preferred handling and not a guarantee to the sender that the > sender's intent is being honored. A message header like > OBE-At: could be registered provisionally without much hassle, > and you could see if it saw implementation and use. Ted, Do you consider the above significantly different from the X.400-derived Expiry-Date (RFC 1327) or Expires (RFC 2156)? While both are identified as obsolete in RFC 4021 and the IANA Message Header registry, they provide a date and leave it up to the recipient how those metadata are processed. While RFC 1327 and 2156 primarily define those fields by reference to X.400 (1988 and 1992), my recollection of the CCITT/ISO documents is that the expiration date-time is defined in a way that is quite consistent with "Invalidation of Messages" as described above, with the receiving system free to warn about obsolescence or even to discard copies. While I don't think it has much of a future --for reasons that many of us have given and that I assume are consistent with your skepticism -- I'd like to propose what I think would be a far more constructive approach for Vaibhav and colleagues than continued iterations on the IETF list: They could write an I-D in the form of an Experimental document that would actually pin down what they are proposing. That I-D could propose changing the "obsolete" status for "Expires" in the registry to something more active if the experiment succeeds, eliminating the need for any IANA or Expert action at this point and potentially taking advantage of any MUAs or MTAs that haven't bothered to get rid of support for those old headers. Then, with the feature and any needed protocol bits specified, they see if they can get any real traction. Under more usual circumstances, we'd publish an experimental spec without implementations and demonstration of usefulness and usability, but, since "Expires" was implemented and deployed in the past, after which the IETF decided it was obsolete, it seems to me that pursuing this further should require proof of utility and/or a clear explanation of why this time is different. best, john
- Scope for self-destructing email? vaibhav singh
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Dave Cridland
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthew Pounsett
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Warren Kumari
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Randy Presuhn
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Martin Rex
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? joel jaeggli
- RE: Scope for self-destructing email? Michel Py
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Theodore V Faber
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? vaibhav singh
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Ted Hardie
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Matthias Merkel
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Warren Kumari
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Ted Hardie
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Christian Huitema
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Gary E. Miller
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Michael Richardson
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John C Klensin
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? ned+ietf
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Adam Roach
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? John R Levine
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Toerless Eckert
- Re: Scope for self-destructing email? Lloyd Wood
- Email client APIs. features. amd siupport (was: R… John C Klensin
- Re: Email client APIs. features. amd siupport (wa… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Email client APIs. features. amd siupport (wa… Phillip Hallam-Baker