Re: The Accountable Web RE: not listening

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> 
> > To the extent that they can be understood as separable 
> > issues, I don't have a problem with doing what you describe 
> > in addition to writing the I-D.  But I believe these issues 
> > need a wider visibility than just within the DKIM wg.  
> 
> I have followed this thread for some time, I have still not seen the actual issue you wish to raise stated, merely a series of statements pointing to other places that you claim the statement was made.

That's because this thread started out as a thread about WG processes in general, with DKIM only as a specific example of the problem.  I don't really think the IETF list is a good place to go into details about DKIM.  For various reasons, I don't think the DKIM list is a good place either.  So posting an I-D is the best I can do.   I certainly don't expect people to respond to my DKIM concerns until I've taken the time to explain them in detail.  And the whole point of posting an I-D is to raise those concerns in a timely fashion - well before Last Call - and in a manner that makes constructive response possible.  

Maybe I shouldn't have used DKIM as an example.  To me, the problems are obvious, but they might not be to anyone who wished to look for them.

> I am entirely willing to discuss technical issues relating to DKIM in particular and the Accountable Web in general.
> 
> What I am not prepared to do is to argue over technical issues as proxies for the political issues that underly them.

These issues exist on multiple layers.  The technical issues and the political issues are both important, separately and because of their interaction.  Without responding in detail to your screed about the Accountable Web (as if that were an unimpeachable Guiding Principle to which We Should All Aspire), I will say that I do have sympathy for some of the concerns you express.  I also believe that to some extent, the ability to communicate anonymously is necessary for the good of society.  I also believe that creating an authentication system that favors large domains over small ones, and inflexible signing policy over flexible signing policy, is bad for society.  The trick is getting a balance between these.   Some of my concerns about DKIM are in this area, but not all of them.

Keith

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]