On Mon 13/Aug/2012 03:22:52 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote:
At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote:
On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this
area so I can't disagree with the possibility.
Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly
disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the
situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US
related industries and most probably by every Government (including
the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon
market results, about the standards for the people they represent.
FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF
protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for official
communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving them legal
standing. Francesco Gennai presented a brief review of such
procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris. At the time, John
Klensin suggested that, while a more in-depth review of existing
practices would be appreciated, the ITU is a more suitable body for
the standardization of a unified, compatible protocol for certified
email, because of those governmental involvements.
[*] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf