[Please view this message as either plain text or HTML, according to your
preference and the capabilities of the application you use to read mail]

On 29 May 2023, at 10:43, Anna Wilson wrote:

Re "uncredentialled", see below ...

Yes, and Leo's not the only one.

I don't have that picture yet. I can offer some brainstorming bullet-points
which I've assembled from

• things I (thought I) understood from Leo well before RIPE86,
• what I've seen while lurking in the hallway-chat channel of the RPKI Community Discord server,
• what I've noticed in this thread,
• various hallway conversations,
• some concerns of my own.

I hope these will help towards painting a clearer picture.

I'm sure I've inadvertently left some things, perhaps even important ones, out, and equally sure that one or other of you will help fill in the gaps.

Disclaimer

No personal name used below, except that of the author, is intended
to refer to any actual person, living or dead.

Preconceptions

Alternatively "prejudices", or "how things used to be".

• open standards (SMTP, MIME) ensured interoperability
• in-house service, not commodity at scale, and consequently:
  • local expert(s) with responsibility for operating server;
  • direct relationship between user and operator;
  • email address was quasi-credential; eg. Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie
    identified the sender because the local operator (probably Niall
    O'Reilly himself or a very close colleague) had to set up the mailbox;
  • direct resolution of almost all problems;
  • typically only two, or maybe three, parties involved: local
    server operator at ucd.ie, heanet.ie, and maybe list admin
    at ripe.net.

Meanwhile

"It's email, Jim, but not as we (used to) know it."

• outsourced service, badge-engineered with domain-part of address;
• proprietary "enhancements" undermine interoperability;
• different aspects of service outsourced separately, perhaps indirectly:
  • mailbox hosting,
  • blocklists;
• indirect problem resolution via (chain of) outsourced providers;
• restricted range of problems which any given provider will address;
• message transmission may be restricted by a provider's policies;
• complexity due to richer set of standards (SPF, DKIM, SAML, OAuth, TLS).

Use cases

• targeted/personal notification:
  • unique personal link to meeting platform,
  • access credential for e-voting system,
  • invoices, receipts;
• group communication:
  • informal or ephemeral chat;
  • on-the-record discussion;
  • formal announcement of milestone or other state transition, eg:
    • phase of discussion,
    • consensus,
    • beginning or end of term of office;

Strengths of e-mail

• single client (MUA) gives user access to, and management of,
  many message feeds;
• variety of MUAs matching personal preference and workflow:
  • web-based,
  • editor-based,
  • dedicated application;
• list archives
  • support transparency,
  • provide backup for inadvertently deleted messages,
  • mitigate effect of non-delivery;
• mature technology (but see below).

Weaknesses of e-mail

• mature technology (but see above);
• some (even many) people find alternative platforms better for
  informal, ephemeral, or more dynamic interaction;
• selective delivery, according to provider's policy.

Challenges

• RIPE (and/or RIPE NCC) "branding";
• applicability of RIPE Code of Conduct to alternative means of
  communication;
• proprietary vs open-source platform;
• in-house or outsourced operation;
• selection of user application (UA):
  • risk of proliferation of UA applications,
  • aggregating UA apps (eg Mattermost);
• tapered (rather than abrupt) transition;
• parallel support for alternative delivery channels;

---

I hope this helps.

Niall