Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@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 0B5841ADFFD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:15:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2dp_Gfqw57Lz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BD41ADFF5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q59so14721185wes.27 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:15:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=o0Ni+LRgVtfbZ5POgpgCOk+T/idlqovUxKm6NGZrEGk=; b=ljECpaj/9AA+IxCsf6KzEbX5zGYQ+ZglzcO98wCawSDknl6/dg490AZQHNVzu01DBO S1sJUIKkBz1c3BRJeCVfAIXUebQvc6T/ZzoB/LdAhtPH+IS0sW7NEa0bb+KVOXweXc+/ PjZd34mq495x+B3+Ag/Fmq0mx5IrkLcXraUCqfVGI9rA7REpocXUs/vlK9zKJUjfJ/Ci zid+6PW2mJKgl0jzV5TXoGPPQsGAjO/fgFaAnL3AecEof95r9zVZDSB9P0297sTWy5Mw SGHEGIFbR1yWzEfngSdbPnzdJwayExsKwRgT4yB8ZzvQRG5Mi+7kvSZF5FvWiDFUiVWA Ynxg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.189.80 with SMTP id gg16mr5245518wic.32.1386126935306; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.243.136 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:15:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAGhGL2AK2QhNEoahSrFepzcsY9DHsW4Hbk-Kkv1-+gftOCSFSw@mail.gmail.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> <CAGhGL2AK2QhNEoahSrFepzcsY9DHsW4Hbk-Kkv1-+gftOCSFSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:15:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjLTC_BEo4nqUi0ZyDWhrWyVqnh+wZ8xxzsuW_rv=E2kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2231497b9ce04ecacd392"
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 03:15:41 -0000

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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.
>
>


+1

Basically S/MIME was implemented to gain checklist compliance and little
else. It didn't have to work well, it just had to satisfy the government
procurement requirement. PGP meanwhile suffered from an excess of
ideological commitment.

If we only had one standard it would have been harder for people to ignore
the problems.


I find the defeatism quite depressing. If we know the reason the previous
efforts have failed, all we need to do is to address them and try again.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/