ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Want a BoF at IETF 62?

2004-12-28 20:45:52

It is time to decide if MASS is going to have a BoF at IETF 62.  As
you know, one was not held at IETF 61.  Is the group ready to nail
down a charter and milestones?

I'm afraid I see no consensus here at all on what problem
we're trying to solve, let alone on the right way to solve
it. Instead, we're engaged in the time-honored IETF practice
of letting the unattainable best be the mortal enemy of the
good enough.

As such, I think a BOF would be a complete waste of time.

Another question to think about is whether the IETF really wants to make a
fifth attempt in the email signature area, so far it has done PEM, MOSS, PGP
& S/MIME.

This point has already been raised by Patrik Falstrom and others. And if what
this group decides to define is  yet another end to end signature scheme, then
I am in complete agreement with him: We have no business rearranging that
particular set of deck chairs a fifth time. Surely the number five should carry
with it at least some indication that this is not where we should be going...

I think that what we have here is an application protocol rather than a core
infrastructure platform.

I guess I disagree - sort of. I think what we have here is a problem that can
in fact be addressed through the creation of some additional infrastructure,
something the IETF is competent to do. I do agree, however, that what people
seem to be pushing for is yet another foray into the application space, which
is not what we should be doing. (I don't see the point of discussing the IETF's
competence or lack of it given this is not something I  think we should
be doing...)

The IETF has never been that comfortable at the
application layer, particularly the consumer facing part of it. How is an
organization going to work out best security practices for HTML email when
the majority of the members cannot see the value of the idea?

I have a very clear idea of what I want to achieve and I believe that my
view of the problem to be solved and the approach to solving it is shared by
the majority of the application oriented people. I also believe that there
is simply no point in trying to explain the value of that concept to network
focused people who use elm or pine as their mailer.

FWIW, I don't use either one. I use several clients, including PMDF MAIL (which
I doubt you've heard of, but the version I use does include provisions for
handling HTML), Netscape Mail, Mulberry on occasion, and a couple of different
webmail clients. These days I frankly have no idea if this makes me atypical or
not.

                                Ned


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>