On Oct 3, 2004, at 11:09 AM, James M Galvin wrote:
I can not support the charter as long as it allows this group to create
a new email signature protocol.
If I'm alone or even a minority in that view, ship it to the IESG.
make my comments again during "Last Call."
If others agree with me now would be a good time to speak up.
On Oct 3, 2004, at 5:02 PM, George Gross wrote:
I too have yet to hear a cogent explaination why S/MIME with
header information included under the signature would not handle this
problem. If I'm beating a dead horse, plz let me know where this
thrashing has been archived (I acknowledge that I'm new to this list).
I have to agree with Jim and George here.
In addition to the arguments they have given, I want to point out the
following: we've been told that time is in short supply and that even
taking 2 extra months to understand our requirements will cause
problems. If that is so, then we cannot risk time on a new scheme; we
must limit the scope of the charter to S/MIME or PGP.