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.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious,
Pete Resnick <=
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?, Keith Moore
|
|
|