Re: draft-gennai-smime-cnipa-pec-08

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

 



On 16/Sep/10 01:57, John C Klensin wrote:
[...] I think it is safe to conclude that the rough consensus in
the email is that the mechanism is really not workable regardless
of whether it can be implemented and whether the Italian government
says that it is required and works.

Well, it is required by law, so one may say it works... However, the I-D only mentions a part of the system, and it says right at the top that

  This document represents the English version of the Italian
  specfications, (http://www.cnipa.gov.it/site/_files/Pec-def.pdf)
  which will be the ultimate PEC reference.

(That "which" seemingly refers to "the Italian specifications" rather than "the English version", even if the comma and parentheses that precede it might be misleading.) Some passages differ slightly from the Italian version. For example, there is a section, 8.5 in Italian, that briefly describes the content of the "PEC providers directory". In the English version, section 4.5, as a note to the scheme, mentions that "[t]he data of all PEC providers is encompassed in a [LDIF] file". But how does one become a PEC provider? I, for one, am not entitled to. In practice, the mechanism describes a private walled garden. Being governmental may make it public, in some sense, but not open.

While I agree with John Levine that publishing a description of
existing practice is in the community's interest, there is not
an obvious mechanism in RFC 5741 to express the consensus
situation and the email community's conviction that the
mechanism is not satisfactory.

+1
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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