On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 02:13:42PM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
Like it or not, there are privacy tradeoffs in the decision to include or
omit
this information. The continued refusal to acknowledge that these tradeoffs
exist has us all circling around and around and is making it impossible to
move forward in this discussion.
Agreed, strongly. I think the way forward (or perhaps, better,
*a* way forward) is to form an EG or a RG and try to create
a survey of the privacy issues -- including the tradeoffs.
I think that there are far more serious issues in play and that it would
be a useful exercise to try to enumerate all of them in one place --
well before we think about deciding *which* to address and *how* to
address them.
I agree that this seems like the best way forward given the discussion. But I
have two concerns.
First, while there's at least some chance that moving to an EG/RG format can
get things past the disconnect, it's far from a certainty.
Second, this will take a fair bit of time, and as I've noted previously, things
are already on the move. We may have lost our chance at relevance by the time
we're done.
But frankly, nothing else seems like to reach any sort of consensus, so unless
someone has a really bright idea they haven't voiced yet, this looks to me to
be as good as it's going to get.
Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp