Re: Last Call: <draft-levine-herkula-oneclick-04.txt> (Signalling one-click functionality for list email headers) to Proposed Standard

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 20 September 2016 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 82D1112B4E4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=YuPG9/cq; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=mDGH7n/0
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 OUaQ-Ih5hqbT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 899E912B0CF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16897 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2016 19:50:56 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=41ff.57e19320.k1609; bh=3Szz4JyZ5UR8R7c4RxZHJfCzdc3WEemLBAuhJ69GtSA=; b=YuPG9/cq6FvRAfxU7n3f8A4hTLHmpYdeuc1ZB3Bk08MCUhJUljCWXv9WvQmgZiP2g3ZXEU+Riq85jaqDL3L1y+6+P27282FiH0J2YSTNeX5Tq5lPkIxBByYlVEpgJzi3GEdMdGvDcYfeFkmrDqlcJ8dCvuAlhxIToe5SRRIZ1LCHo0W9x+UcKNuhLQBAdD6rVB5kKIj20RibWF9ErUaUa1CDOlF4RcqrBb6AfhZqz4YOXfChxuD50EoqRq94wLCZ
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=41ff.57e19320.k1609; bh=3Szz4JyZ5UR8R7c4RxZHJfCzdc3WEemLBAuhJ69GtSA=; b=mDGH7n/0U9MrcvhCf1IikNWJJ2k/0mU0+Tg2f0xAUrmyruR7v4tq/aaqBRiBxKwyyoiqYgjghdl0jVxJkFY8cu5oS9wkK8rH1NaX8L+uk2mRW1QRzLEE/yeVGk//T0XyaJOWLhzT73/jOS8vcf/8CRXjC/MtgYe4YjUlAlTLchNh3k4lHa7jJADWONfNTCqRSPsBEIu1gqF+XZapk7KIk4A0NoNq9AJGSLT12N5Wf/bIDumZFUfY/ZWalysXxDEE
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 20 Sep 2016 19:50:56 -0000
Date: 20 Sep 2016 15:50:58 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609201547420.19875@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-levine-herkula-oneclick-04.txt> (Signalling one-click functionality for list email headers) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <22416efb-9875-a3db-7471-cbe282e5b1a8@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160920175121.85977.qmail@ary.lan> <22416efb-9875-a3db-7471-cbe282e5b1a8@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/J9mz6aPjIjRJfd3ULwSWZXJe7HA>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:58:17 -0000

I really hope you're wrong, because if you're not, the only sensible thing 
to do is to tell the mail providers to go ahead and implement the draft, 
maybe the IETF will do something, maybe not.  Registrar EPP has been 
working this way for over a decade, and it would be a shame for IETF 
sclerosis to make it happen to mail, too.

I assume you saw the mail on dispatch last month from Sri Somanchi 
at Google explaining in detail why they want this, and the various 
messages from my co-author Tobias.  I believe they're why this advanced 
from a random draft to AD sponsored.

R's,
John

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 9/20/2016 10:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Nothing personal, but for interop purposes, the opinions of ops people
>> at large mail systems matter a lot more than your opinion or mine.
>
>
> So, the only discussion I see for this draft is during this last call, on 
> this list.
>
> I see postings from a total of 4 people, other than yourself and the 
> sponsoring AD.
>
> None of the content of the postings relate to the issue about which you are 
> asserting definitive information, above.
>
> That reduces your assertion to one of your own authority on the topic.
>
> No doubt, your assessment is perfectly correct.  However the IETF has 
> typically sought a broader base for assessing such assertions, lest Internet 
> Standards be reduced to individual whim.
>
> Simply put:  The folk who want this spec and who want it to be exactly as 
> you've specified it need to show up here and post their informed views on the 
> spec.  Otherwise, there is no objective basis for estimating the actual need 
> or likely uptake of the spec.