Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [

ned+ima@mrochek.com Mon, 17 October 2016 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF561294F0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 yf6t5YSULelN for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (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 797E0129477 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q67DF8JYQO00XBMY@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1476696149; bh=gemCFMQMsDs3qFhADOXatYmvm3c1BG+p4x+3AkCZmBg=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=q7kR9vDWej70yKscjQeWFr8hxLFxGEd3Z6qFu5/2FEkWs3dHFV2ImQiGjlh/tQHuX jn2n73XRdQCwiLJ7hiU5sdZC+42Fl2jkfauH3Z/9/fesRqJmZxTEzwCBQeVtcUuzWD Lz13STIxhfc2pqyUj/fvyUgqHyaY19MHpJRH8Eo8=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q64TB541DS00Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01Q67DF6I3XC00Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:11:03 +0900" <7f7ec0f8-2a3a-43e6-ebfe-117be6877a13@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <MWHPR03MB281341141A1CE0C0895F58A482D10@MWHPR03MB2813.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <01Q668S03W0W00Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com> <7f7ec0f8-2a3a-43e6-ebfe-117be6877a13@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?=" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/As9ryPxhewsOt2eX6g1WKuBmbjE>
Cc: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ima/>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:27:33 -0000

> > The effect of this is to essentially to create a EAI-capable subset of any
> > discussion. That breaks accontability, as John notes. But perhaps more
> > important is the fact that it also breaks the entire open model.

> Well, the message would go to the mailing list archive, which should be
> enough for theoretical accountability and openness.

You're ignoring second order effects - the fact that only a subset of
subscribers will see such messages and thus have no chance to respond is both
intrinscly nontransparent as well as inimical to the accountability provided by
full and robust debate.

As for archives, unless you can produce evidence that a significant fraction of
people actually regularly review the archives to check for messages they might
have missed, I view them as irrelevant to the matter at hand.

> But of course, a
> mailing list where contributions from some set of participants to some
> other set of participants regularly disappear in a black hole don't make
> much sense.

It's a lot more fundamental than that. See above.

				Ned