From: J C Lawrence <claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu>
...
1) Are we sufficiently agreed that challenge/response will be a part
of the solution that we can move ahead on its design?
...
If consenus existed on that premise (which definitely has not been
established), that assertion assumes or implies things that range
from dubious to probably false to obviously false:
- the IRTF is where protocols are designed.
- designing challenge/response protocols fits the charter for this RG.
See http://irtf.org/charters/asrg.html
- it is time to consider designing or refining the design of any spam
defense protocol in this RG.
- the word "protocol" in the sense it is used around here fits the
notion of challenge/response spam defenses.
- there will be single challenge/response protocol or even style
of challenges and responses.
- it would be a good thing for there to be a single challenge/response
protocol or style.
- if it were a good thing to have a single protocol or style, the
IETF or IRTF could stifle others.
Whatever you mean by designing a challenge/response protocol, if you
want to do it, then the next step is for you to do do it. You and
anyone working with you might (or might not) want to write down your
protocol as an ID, but that is certainly not required, as demonstrated
by the many challenge/response spam defenses currently in use.
The IETF is definitely not a legislature, and the IRTF more so.
It is not the lack of voting that makes that a true statement.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg