IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Old directions in social media.

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 05 January 2021 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 0F0833A10FA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:25:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 ExENWyWpOq6O for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:25:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79ACB3A119B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:25:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9Msb2jG5z1ntHw; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:25:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1609874739; bh=htM5qqg6ppoUy91GUMyv6r7KSlSVwac5P+dg+qd3geI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mJwPXi5ulf0rOeUJpXbaAbnM2hpfE0RsWbO7ZrV8jk2OxkJNPvckqH6FxHGB2WHRs S58hcl9fwPVKfuj9ufKEvuBvkcQZ6MDVscCeTvBplhzcdZR9q4Yci5yQD8E/Hlt1t0 M4F9WDmgDckSBoeIr4LjZXIAK1C5OdyT/2904X5s=
X-Quarantine-ID: <dCS-2tSBjkOw>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D9MsZ61cDz1nvXX; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Old directions in social media.
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAJU8_nUostFKjKU43wk-RG5+8SYgMc8Ag-MWs=UXi7x8YXTaKA@mail.gmail.com> <D152D8C5-1863-4BEE-9DA4-A1C31AAC809C@network-heretics.com> <47B4988E-5865-40FF-93C4-9E7D1A63C074@akamai.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <43aeffb7-ffd5-e6cc-9f6d-20be7ce10f39@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:25:37 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47B4988E-5865-40FF-93C4-9E7D1A63C074@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/i6S0g9bhkqIyS0x-DQTNWNZIxeA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 05 Jan 2021 19:25:41 -0000

As a reasonable compromise, the WG left it to each WG to decide how it 
would work.
As such, we end up having this fight over and over in various working 
groups.
And, equally understandably, some folks want to push the newer approach 
as required for all WGs.  Which causes us to repeat the disucssion on 
the IETF list.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/5/2021 2:16 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> We had a WG on this, we wrote and published an RFC on this.  Let’s move 
> on to more useful arguments, like requiring all IETF communications to 
> be plaintext email delivered via port 25 to an IPv4 address.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email