Date: 2005-08-05 04:00
From: Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
We have seen some evidence that people believe the names that are used to
label
an activity.
I believe this potentially useful activity is NOT about signatures.
It is about "survivable" canonicalization. Since that is such an awkward
phrase, it is probably reasonable to say it is about hashes.
Well, it's about canonicalization for the purpose of having something over
which to compute a hash, for the purpose of signing selected parts of a
message (including some header fields and possibly only an initial portion
of the message body).
calling the activity bodysig is going to draw folk that actually want to talk
about signatures.
Calling it "Body signature subgroup" is downright misleading, since it
involves header fields and possibly only a part of the body (we already
have Content-MD5 (RFC 1864, a Draft Standard) for body and MIME body part
hashes).
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg