Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy" WG (fwd)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 02 December 2015 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7381B2BF8; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:54:39 -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 XfOP2JQS0eiG; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:54:38 -0800 (PST)
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 30A6B1B2C33; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.99] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB2GsYj5005320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:54:34 -0800
References: <20151130042819.10658.qmail@ary.lan> <1448858775386-ceecd236-8b11ac04-a03b4438@fugue.com> <01PTPUIP3IUK01729W@mauve.mrochek.com> <11d014e5-9a6a-4b78-92a1-8e0a1e0a905d@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <lGTaHvC8ygXWFAuu@highwayman.com> <565EBD82.2030600@pscs.co.uk> <1449065151122-b9505bf5-be5f0e83-f9cdd79b@fugue.com> <565EFD93.2060507@pscs.co.uk> <1449070095816-c64690a8-829c0c47-fd944ab9@fugue.com> <565F162F.7010109@dcrocker.net> <565F1D1F.6080307@megacity.org> <565F1FCE.9040702@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <565F2262.9080002@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:54:58 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <565F1FCE.9040702@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/SDiKXZg0OqspSL2OYRa_JlR2lrM>
Cc: shutup@ietf.org, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy" WG (fwd)
X-BeenThere: shutup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy <shutup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/shutup/>
List-Post: <mailto:shutup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 16:54:39 -0000

On 12/2/2015 8:43 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/12/15 16:32, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>> Why isn't this as simple as chartering the WG to go off and:
>>
>> 1.) Document the answers to questions 2 and 3 above, with data
>> 2.) If they so choose after doing #1, propose remedies or changes to the
>> existing methodologies consistent with the data they found above
> 
> (With no hats) That seems eminently sensible to me. I'm sure
> the specific text to describe the questions would need a bit
> of work, but that oughtn't be too hard.


1. That's an IRTF type of task, not an IETF type of task.

2. As sensible as the task might seem, the IETF pretty much never
requires documentation about expected efficacy.  That makes imposition
of such a requirement, here, discriminatory.

The original approach to chartering working groups was rather simpler:

  1.  Is there clear indication that 'the community' wants to do this,
by virtue of there being folk who want spend time on wg development and
they or other folk making noises about interest in implementing and
developing it?

  2.  Is there a clear understanding of potential /danger/ from doing this?

These days, we mostly stop at the first half of Question 1.  But we have
pretty much always left the question of 'efficacy' to the market.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net