On 3/9/15, 19:18, "D. J. Bernstein" <d...@cr.yp.to> wrote: I had a longer response (no surprise) but I'll boil it to this:
>a large operator is using its market position to violate the standards >and _create_ interoperability failures as a tool to enforce a protocol >change that it wants. When you describe it that way, the operator is acting irresponsibly. >If you want IETF standards to be taken seriously---if you think that the >basic rules of Internet communication should be established by consensus >in IETF, and not simply overridden by future developers and operators >who think they know better, including cases where you _don't_ agree with >them---then you have to stop endorsing standards violations. The issue I have with that paragraph lies in the use of pronouns. "You" - you can be the IETF. You can be the operators. You can be the world retail industry (those owning web sites). You can be the general population (those running web browsers). I think the answers differ depending to what "you" is. (I had listed them, but decided to remove them. Mail got too long.) In short, I think there is some onus on the IETF to keep itself relevant (eliding specifics of what I mean). Many of the "you"s don't hold adherence to the IETF has the highest priority.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
