I would accept that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell
[mailto:stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:45 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Eliot Lear; Barry Leiba; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM BOF -- draft charter and agenda
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