Subject: [Asrg] Consent, ASRG, and RMX

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 11:59:50 -0400

The charter of group says that the purpose is to discuss
"consent-based communication".  It continues:

  "This means that an individual or organization should be able to
   express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have
   the architecture support those desires."

  RMX explicitely satisfies that charter goal.

  The opposition to RMX has (to me) appeared to be based on the idea
that the some people can make consent choices for third-party
individuals or organizations.  That is, they state that they do NOT
consent to individuals or organizations being able to express consent
for certain communications, and that they do NOT consent to those
individuals or organizatings having the architecture to support those
desires.

  While I understand that the opposition has perhaps not made that
statement explicit, they have danced around the issue, and have
refused to expressly deny it when asked if that is, in fact, their
opinion.

  I therefore ask the chair to make a statement that, technical
considerations aside, RMX explicitely falls within the charter of
ASRG.  I further ask the chair to make a statement that people who
oppose the explicit charter goals of this group should not participate
in further discussion.

  Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 12:22:32 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Asrg] Consent, ASRG, and RMX
> 
> 
>   The opposition to RMX has (to me) appeared to be based on 
> the idea that the some people can make consent choices for 
> third-party individuals or organizations.  That is, they 
> state that they do NOT consent to individuals or 
> organizations being able to express consent for certain 
> communications, and that they do NOT consent to those 
> individuals or organizatings having the architecture to 
> support those desires.
> 
>   While I understand that the opposition has perhaps not made 
> that statement explicit, they have danced around the issue, 
> and have refused to expressly deny it when asked if that is, 
> in fact, their opinion.
>
>   I therefore ask the chair to make a statement that, 
> technical considerations aside, RMX explicitely falls within 
> the charter of ASRG.  I further ask the chair to make a 
> statement that people who oppose the explicit charter goals 
> of this group should not participate in further discussion.

RMX allows a machine to understand certain characteristics about a message
that was received. Depending on the answer that is received, it indicates
certain things: 1)RMX not deployed for that domain; 2)The host is authorized
for that domain; 3) The host is not authorized for that domain. This
provides another hint about that communication. This can be used as input to
an overall decision about whether or not this message is wanted. 

There are of course some technical details to be worked out in the proposal.
Then, overall benefit vs cost must be evaluated as well as evaluating this
proposal against other mechanisms that achieve similar results. However,
there is clearly a need for authentication and RMX is a decent proposal to
continue to evaluate.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg