Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Working Group on Email Exchange of Secondary School Transcripts

From: Chuck Davin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 08:10:07 -0400

Hello Pete,

I recently received some robo-mail reminding me that the EESST internet
draft (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-davin-eesst-00.pdf) is about to
expire.  I would still like to pursue standardization of this draft
(http://www.eesst.org) but clearly have been too distracted recently to
make much headway.

Over the past six months, I have been engaged in local lobbying
and grass-roots efforts to prevent individual student information from
being shared with third-parties.  Recently, those efforts have met with
some success, although a tangential free speech case is still pending in
local court.  As has been widely reported (e.g.,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/internet-data-mining-children-107461.html?hp=l7),
many state legislatures have taken up the issue of who owns and controls
individual student information, and perhaps the tide is turning against
authoritarian school officials and third-party corporate "custodians" of
our children's data.  At the time, I concluded that these real-world
efforts to protect our children were more urgent than cranking up an
IETF standardization effort (sorry).

To the extent that more school officials may now be taking individual
student privacy more seriously, they will need tools to help them do
that.  At the very least, school officials should be deprived of the
excuse that centralized, third-party databases are the only available
technology alternative, that individual control over individual personal
information is not technically possible.  That's why a timely
standardization effort is needed.

So, I'm reaching out to other like-minded internet engineers, who may
also be concerned citizens and parents.  In this community, the
requisite technology is certainly familiar, and it may be that the
independent spirit of the old days is also still alive.  Will corporate
powers or education bureaucrats rush to embrace this effort?  Maybe not,
but our children need an alternative, and the IETF can perhaps speak
with greatest authority regarding secure email.  This isn't especially
hard work, but I believe it needs to be done.  Who out there shares that
belief?  Who is willing to help?

Best,
Chuck
(IETF-er from long ago)

---

From: Chuck Davin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:33:30 -0400

Hello,

I recently posted a message here probing interest in pursuing a standard
format for emailing school transcripts.  A (soon-to-expire) draft
is at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-davin-eesst-00.pdf and also at
http://www.eesst.org/eesst-spec-01.pdf.

I understand that members of this group are probably keen to finish up
works already in progress in advance of the Toronto meeting.  But the
deafening silence is beginning to hurt my ears :-).  While I could
interpret that silence as some indication of interest, under the
circumstances, I was really hoping for something more explicit.  As
current controversies perhaps find resolution in the coming week,
perhaps one or more of you could steal a moment to sound your interest
in securing the privacy of our children.

Any thoughts about the draft or suggestions for how to proceed?   Right
now, I'm checking my MX record to see whether or not it has silently
morphed into a null pointer.  Anybody want to help test it by responding
to this message?

Best,
Chuck

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:28:48 -0700

Hi Chuck,
>morphed into a null pointer.  Anybody want to help test it by responding

I read the draft quickly.  It is about moving from paper-based 
communication for students instead of attempting to solve some 
internet-related problem.  I am reminded of EDI.  There have been 
previous proposals which built upon SMTP to do interesting things.  I 
suggest reviewing the discussions about those proposals to get an 
idea of what to expect.

OpenPGP is used for encryption of a document, the transcript in this 
case.  The draft describes procedures which are only relevant to 
secondary schools, and probably for those in specific country.  The 
draft is well-written.   I suggest providing a description of the 
internet-related technical problem.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 2014 03:07:02 -0000

Having looked quickly at your draft, it looks plausible, but I have
a meta-question.

How much interest is there from secondary schools or the colleges that
would presumably be the recipients of the transcripts?  We just write
the specs, we can't force anyone to do anything.  It's only worth
spending time on something like this if we believe there is a
reasonable chance the relevant parties want it and will use it.

R's,
John

---

From: Chuck Davin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:40:56 -0400

Hello S Moonesamy,

Thank you very much for responding and for your timely review.

Actually, the draft is not really about the transition from paper to
digital media but rather about keeping students in control of their own
information.

Since you mentioned it, I took the time to review some of the old
EDI-INT work.  While I'm not certain exactly what you intend by your
reference, it is worth noting that the EESST draft neither defines nor
advocates anything like "certified email" or "email receipts" (on the
contrary!).

The "internet technical problem" being solved by EESST is that there is
currently no common way for students to control distribution of their
own personal information while still enjoying certification of their
academic accomplishments by school officials.  Turns out that problem
can be solved by leveraging existing Internet standards and widely
deployed tools.

Running code exists.  I think our rough consensus should be to light a
candle that illuminates this solution rather than merely to curse the
darkness of the status quo.

Best,
Chuck

---

From: Chuck Davin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:20:00 -0400

Hello John,

Thanks for taking the time to review the draft.

Your meta-question is very much to the point.  We only write specs; we
can't force anyone to drink.  When college and secondary school
officials and their vendors meet to talk about student records, there
aren't often any students in the room,  I am far from naive about the
politics that could frustrate adoption of an alternative that admits the
rights of students in their own information.

But I disagree that documenting the possibility of a better future is
not worth it unless all parties are eager for change.  To have much
traction, student privacy advocates need a plausible, technically sound
alternative to the exclusive, centralized machinery generally in place.

Perhaps we should consider how much effort would actually be necessary
to present a plausible alternative as opposed to a universally endorsed
official proscription.

Best,
Chuck

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Jul 2014 22:19:59 -0400

> to present a plausible alternative as opposed to a universally endorsed

This isn't an issue of principle -- it's purely practical.  The volunteers 
in a WG only have so much time, and the Internet Society pays the 
production staff several thousand dollars for each RFC they edit and 
publish.  If there isn't anyone likely to use a proposed document, it's 
just not a good use of our time and their money.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.