Re: email standards

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 23 September 2014 20:27 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 1AB481A88C9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:27:32 -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 SpVWp_a5j_d8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:27:28 -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 F2A6D1A88CA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:27:27 -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 s8NKRLOV021262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:27:25 -0700
Message-ID: <5421D7A2.8030309@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:27:14 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjxOiFsWcCZoGcaqaF3fv6XBOK8LhQdzWJsigYvQQ4-kg@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 13:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NTR1MU0V1fo_Wc1wMPip8NmNNHc
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: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:27:32 -0000

On 9/23/2014 1:08 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I meant two secure email standards. Empirically we have two right now,
> S/MIME and PGP.
> 
> Since I was talking about security, I thought it was obvious from the context.


It wasn't.

And to be thorough, you also forgot PEM...


Anyhow, sometimes we need to let competitive efforts develop and then
let the market choose among them.  Artificially stifling serious
constituenies from pursuing credible alternatives is often poor
engineering and worse politics.


In this case, there really was significant effort to get some amount of
collaboration between the two groups -- the related MIME multipart
constructs were designed to allow some co-habitation -- but it didn't
get any traction.  (One of the groups was particularly political in how
it managed its activities, but neither group was all that flexible.)


FWIW, it's unlikely that the competition in this case has had anything
to do with the poor uptake of either mechanism.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net