Subject: Re[2]: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response

From: Brett Watson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:14:40 +1100

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:26:14 -0500 (EST) Richard Welty <[email-masked]> 
wrote:
> if i might suggest, normally in the crypto groups, algorithms and their
> labeling are generally separated out from the protocols. this allowed,
> for example, AES to easily be added to the IPSec and SSH suites
> w/o messing with the existing drafts. i would submit that labeling
> should be a separate draft which can subsequently be supplemented
> or superceeded.

I heartily second that notion. Eric's draft makes a number of suggestions, of 
which the content-tagging tokens are only a small part. It would be better if 
the draft merely specified a *means* for those tokens to be incorporated, and 
the tokens themselves were externalised.

Eric has already expressed the opinion that the tokens are the most likely 
candidate for tweaking by the other Powers That Be, so it would be wise to 
isolate them from the more technical aspects of the draft. This is also the 
area most likely to be expanded upon by other lawmaking bodies or future 
revisions to the law. If the Powers That Be are going to do any tweaking, 
let's give them something obvious to tweak that won't result in any technical 
brain damage.

Let the main draft specify "Solicitation:" (or whatever) as the standard means 
of placing legally-required labels on a message, and define the labels 
themselves in another document entirely. (You may want to define a *grammar* 
for the labels in the main draft, but leave the actual vocabulary out of it.)

Regards,
TFBW

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

---

From: Richard Welty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:24:28 -0500 (EST)

> for the labels in the main draft, but leave the actual vocabulary out of it.)

actually, i'd lean towards a doc on grammar and other generic labeling
details, and one with an actual set of labels, now that i think about it.

richard
-- 
Richard Welty                                         [email-masked]
Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
    Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:40:45 -0500

Brett Watson <[email-masked]>:
> I heartily second that notion. Eric's draft makes a number of
> suggestions, of which the content-tagging tokens are only a small
> part. It would be better if the draft merely specified a *means* for
> those tokens to be incorporated, and the tokens themselves were
> externalised.

It's an appealing idea.  But:

(1) Right now, the draft is a complete and self-contained response to
CAN-SPAM 11.2.  I think it may be a bad idea tactically to split it 
apart.  Better to give the FTC one simple document when it comes time.

(2) The present vocabulary is not arbitrary, it is the categories 
*required* by CAN-SPAM.  So there's a case for any further vocabulary
extensions to be in a separate TS, but an equally strong case that these
belong in the base document.

(3) There's a coordination issue with Carl Malamud's NO-SOLICITATION
I-D.  I've just changed my draft to spell the header and keywords the
exact same way he does.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>