Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity -- scaling, adoption, diversit y and

Phillip,

HBP> This working group is charged with a purpose, to stop spam.
HBP> It is not charged with stopping spam by method X.

You keep citing that as if it meant that the group can and should
consider anything it wants to.  As if, for example, this group would
be a reasonable venue for formulating legislation.  After all, some
people think that will "stop spam".

Alas, this is an IRTF activity. and the charter for this particular
group includes:

   "Expressing consent is more straightforward on an individual basis;
   as the solution is moved closer to the source, it is more difficult
   to express a policy that satisfies all downstream receivers. The
   research group will investigate the feasibility of: (1) a single
   architecture that supports this and (2) a framework that allows
   different systems to be plugged in to provide different pieces of
   the solution. "

For this group to spend time on anything other than networking-based
technical solution paths is seriously inappropriate, except to the
extend that study of related issues helps the group do its networking
work.


HBP> Best practices statements have long been a feature of the
HBP> IETF and IRTF. These have rarely considered the purely interop
HBP> issues you are promoting.

Pretty much everything that comes out of the IETF is about
interoperability.  BCPs, in particular, focus on the administrative
and operations aspects of making Internet protocol (and format)
specification viable in the modern, global Internet.  In effect, they
are about the *essence* of interoperability.


HBP> Like many others in the IETF you appear to have the idea that
HBP> it is somehow your position to impart your learned experience

Good job.  Slam the IETF and me at the same time.

By the way, I note that your own expertise appears to lack the ability
to follow through on discussing basic assertions you make.  In
particular, you have not yet pursued the substance of:

   1. You made an assertion about the operational superiority of
   enhancing an installed base through a core approach, rather than an
   edge approach.

   2. I asked you to cite an example of such an approach being done
   successfully (both broad and timely deployment and use) through
   architectural changes to the core, when it could have been done to
   the edge, instead.


Presumably you are not making up your assertions of fact, on the spur
of the moment, and you actually do have some "learned" experience and
thought behind them. So it would be helpful for you to offer details
about both when your assertions of fact are not automatically accepted
on blind faith. Presumably you are participating in this open exchange
with the intent of constructive dialogue?


HBP> What is needed at this stage is a FAQ which states the problems
...
HBP> I would like to propose that each proposal for a spam solution
HBP> that already appears on the list be required to start what 
HBP> solutions it proposes to the problems identified in the FAQ.

Presumably you are offering to produce the draft of that "FAQ"? It
sounds like it might be useful.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg