[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

2020-07-22 13:11:49
On 21 Jul 2020, at 22:53, Dave Crocker wrote:

When someone makes a claim like that, they need to document it. Nothing in this thread has done anything like documenting the existence of an operational problem.

Yep, I think that's what led several of us to ask, "What exactly is the problem?" People are implying that there's some sort of operational problem, but nobody's saying what it is.

And I agree that it is using quite a bit of unnecessary energy.

People continue to love ASs, but my impression is that they have no field utility.

I think it's worth a discussion here, or in the BOF, of what's meant by an "Applicability Statement" in this context, because people use that term very loosely. My sense is that it is not meant to be a "problem statement" or a "technology review" or a "requirements document" (as people often intend "AS"), but rather a document giving a description of how the protocol pieces are used together in the real world, with a bit of operational guidance and some solid terminology. Perhaps "AS" is the wrong term, but I think what the charter describes would be useful. We should probably work out both what would be useful, and what to call it to avoid confusion.

Pete Resnick
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

ietf-smtp mailing list

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