Murray's work is mentioned in the charter but with re-chartering
as a pre-requisite before it can be adopted. If there's agenda
time left over then I'd have no problem including an agenda
item on Murray's draft. Not sure if that'll be the case this
time however.
If someone wants to claim there're interactions between SSP and
an auth header then I'd have no problem with them wanting to make
that case if there's time and they've written up an I-D (as has
Murray).
Basically, I think we ought be fairly open at this stage when it
comes to ideas as to what does/doesn't belong to a WG version of
SSP (so long as those ideas are presented in I-D form).
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html