Yes, something like that'd be better. We will standardise a new way
(or ways, who knows) to do key distribution just for dkim, but we
are not going to develop any new, fully-featured, generic key
lifecycle protocol - if that's needed we'll point at xkms or
cmc/cmp+scvp or equivalent.
So instead of:
* Additional key management protocols or infrastructure.
Maybe:
* Generic key management protocols or infrastructure.
Stephen.
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
A comment that came up internaly from folk who are not directly
involved:
The charter says that the group will not look at key distribution
infrastructure. So they are not going to distribute keys in the DNS
after all?
I think its just a wording issue, insert the word 'other' appropriately.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org