Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for something

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 10 December 2015 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 3D1011B2CFA; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 05:29:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 xszv729J_zPZ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 05:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03FBB1B2D1F; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 05:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1a71HL-000BK3-QT; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:29:03 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:28:58 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf-smtp@ietf.org, shutup@ietf.org
Message-ID: <738DEB65ECBB08C69B04DC0B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <56689A81.7030401@dcrocker.net>
References: <20151208204227.62714.qmail@ary.lan> <56689A81.7030401@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/tHmXPCSaFJ7OXQqZa5UDG9AzVvI>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:28:39 -0800
Subject: Re: [Shutup] [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for something
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:29:17 -0000


--On Wednesday, December 09, 2015 13:17 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> 
>> I recently noticed RFC 5111 which describes an Exploratory
>> Group, sort of half way between a WG and a RG.  This seems
>> like a good fit.
> 
> Here's why it isn't:
> 
>      The distance between the current state of the community
> and the ability to start a productive working group is not
> merely the matter of clarifying a few issues.
> 
>      The community has no overall sense of privacy protection,
> nor efficacy of choices, nor... well, many things.
> 
>       Absent a basic, systems-approach to guide community
> effort, for doing anything but the most blindingly obvious
> steps for protection, the community will be executing a random
> walk through a very complex face.
> 
>       This will essentially guarantee spending quite a lot of
> time and money on an effort that will have little benefit.

And, if we have learned anything from either more traditional
security designs or protocol design for complex systems more
generally, it also predicts to ending up with a "solution" that
is replaces whatever attack vectors we are trying to eliminate
with others -- perhaps new and perhaps latent there already but
not discovered by the process that is used.

    john