Can I ask Dave to comment if he still wants BATV included as
part of MASS efforts considering that is covered by CLEAR
BOF? He and John can also just send that directly to IETF as
individual submission being result of MARID work.
BATV is a somewhat uncomfortable fit with MASS. The public key
encryption was the primary linkage. Now that BATV does not
directly contain a public key mechanism, the justification for
being in MASS is even more tenuous.
So the idea is to pursue these two envelope-related proposals in
CLEAR and leave MASS to pursue authentication of the message
header and contents.
I don't think we're anywhere close to being ready to pick any
Once again: We can pursue things as if we were starting from
scratch, developing requirements, agreeing on components of the
solution and then, one day, possibly assembling things into a
complete specification. We would be doing well to complete this
within 2 years. Four is more likely and six is not all that
The other approach is to take what is offered and is being
tested, an seek the minimum modifications that the working group
feels are necessary.
The first approach makes sense when a) there is no experience
with a topic, and b) no serious sense of urgency.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://brandenburg.com>