Subject: RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:27:18 -0700

> Sorry, I thought you were aiming toward the age old "this 
> working group has existed too long" debate.  On the 
> usefulness question, I actually think an experienced AD is 
> going to know what works and what doesn't, more so than an 
> inexperienced one.  But the AD doesn't invent the ideas.  So...

It is possible to be too experienced - as was demonstrated during
certain very extended incumbencies.

The particular behavior I was refering to was 'gilding the turd'. Five
or six years ago there was rather a lot of effort going into activities
that made minor improvements to specs that were completely undeployable.

> > The Internet faces two rather serious problems. The Internet is not 
> > secure and we are running out of address space faster than IPv6 
> > deployment is proceeding.
> 
> "Imminent Death of the Net Predicted"(r)
> 
> Wake me when it happens.  Economics will have its say here, IMHO.

Currently Internet crime is costing around a billion to ten billion
dollars a year. At what point do you feel that there is a crisis worthy
of your attention?

> > We really could use a version of DNSSEC that can be deployed.
> 
> Ummm... Physician, Heal Thyself?

If the WG had accepted my proposal the spec would have been deployed
three years ago. At this point we are still waiting for Moore's law to
make RAM cheaper.

Most new ADs tell a number of groups that they are on notice and must
complete or be shut down, these threats are followed through rather less
often. 

There is a particular type of deadlock that arises where a group has not
got a workable spec, refuses to consider the type of changes necessary
to make it workable and refuses to allow any other group to consider the
issue.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:14:07 +0200

Dear Philip and Eliot,

Without going through the full-bore version of this discussion, I have 
to say I was discouraged when the best IETF participants could do 
(when some unfamiliar person started e-mailing people who had 
registered for the the social and asking for more details on credit 
cards) was to e-mail the IETF Discussion list and ask, "is this a 
phishing attack?"

Given the current state of the art, that was NOT a bad solution!

I'm not trying to prove the existence of a final ultimate solution to 
spam simply because a problem exists, I'm simply trying to say that 
ordinary people who don't belong to a mailing list with an awful lot 
of SMTP talent may have even fewer resources in trying to use the 
Internet as a tool, but not a self-inflicted burglary tool :-(

Spencer