Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 D841B1ADFC2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:51:01 -0800 (PST)
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 pJO8uDkAfNzJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B9D1ADF0F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUp3v0hi06lUfsrqLv/kq77kwfydJugMx@postini.com; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:50:58 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14021B82A3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0CF190043; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:50:57 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjCvzDgWTi9mqgvWCoCyRhB+4c8QoaaPQtk=xkBcXMtZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:50:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <98962934-340C-400C-AB30-573C52D13F61@nominum.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>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:51:02 -0000

On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> And twenty years later the market still hasn't decided between S/MIME and PGP.
> Or maybe it has decided none of the above. 

S/MIME has wide implementation, but little deployment.   PGP has little implementation and little deployment.   I think the what the market has said is "we don't really care about this."