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

"Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org> Wed, 02 December 2015 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dredd@megacity.org>
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 CD8361B2C59 for <shutup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:59:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6] autolearn=no
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 6OIBe6LWbpMQ for <shutup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:59:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7756B1B2C58 for <shutup@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:59:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgcc31 with SMTP id c31so37796458qgc.3 for <shutup@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:59:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=megacity-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:references:cc:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=bBONNjogsCEf5xhwgU0veEVlTF6Xpk3jCW5ceBLBHFE=; b=TbV35NdsOwDPFdxHB6Z8abIgOM7po0ui/Js2LNeoOI7+IvAuwj/XRMXrzTm86WDKvG sHBu8N8oauTRlRuoSrHeP4vF5bg7pLGHX317fp9ZLw6MEq65tFQls+gqv9lIM2SY3aKl Edb2uEy6e58IakMxVqrlBKu96CQ7/QTfw6LLOn1MY+tXqUzKlKY9fjXAz0NHRvoPOSIZ xqnrzxJnkgKYk1bJV6Cnjkog9VN6GYHC4rnNVL/Lau6klJgQvPgT7JmZtan19Blwz04a QJl5ECAkeHCsmkgjOImecjUftfigkVW/0nJaO1i6/hl61JikUypTtgtQoM5K8/k7wzjV fb8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:cc:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=bBONNjogsCEf5xhwgU0veEVlTF6Xpk3jCW5ceBLBHFE=; b=aZQElQJjXWU8zs+a+aN0UMgJwMi/Ar8loIydOA4LpvdNsUvSqMFS5Un5qclRyImHAn T1NwQRYka4PZqZM6RcIXdFpjdDKNf0QP7yMTwSGsIomgufG3t0scmTVc/yIg+cfgQo9m DThdqxs1wjqILxeQQIQZIciWPPOwsG3tT70nsM5LDx+MPx/r92PJjer1uA4Se1qG9hXh Y+Ej/Jb9mNyvfKxLKHb+L39OZ0hGM6cP9bWIEiHmNFXugTMH/tRWFjzV+lW4qIsmasWE a1ZIlLk5mHy8COwr0K0sJbzFgbpb09vFWIwLc1G/3WPLhXhVkXU4tON+myHCvj+VKKKn CtVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmS7fL46KJtZefHx0yJ8q//QqvtHcex7+X8BWCOIBcjWlzu8y7WaCiTp4Axsm9BSdp5/ntC
X-Received: by 10.140.101.51 with SMTP id t48mr5384039qge.71.1449075566705; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:59:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Akebono.local (cpe-67-243-53-192.hvc.res.rr.com. [67.243.53.192]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c140sm1551874qkb.30.2015.12.02.08.59.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:59:24 -0800 (PST)
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> <565F2262.9080002@dcrocker.net>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
Message-ID: <565F236A.8060609@megacity.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:59:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <565F2262.9080002@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5ETKRdpE5EDsKdPFgCmFah0htQ08CXRa1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/TShI-xRp5ApBjU-yy3pBqJm_8hQ>
Cc: shutup@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
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 16:59:31 -0000

On 12/2/2015 11:54 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.
>
It seems to me that #1 is covered by virtue of the request existing in
the first place.

I would argue that #2 will be covered in whatever work-product the WG
comes up with (just as any other RFC would have to document
negative-impacts, lack of backward compatibility, etc.).

D

-- 
I prefer to use encrypted mail. My public key fingerprint is
FD6A 6990 F035 DE9E 3713 B4F1 661B 3AD6 D82A BBD0.

You can download it at http://www.megacity.org/gpg_dballing.txt

Learn how to encrypt your email with the E-Mail Self Defense
Guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/