ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: candidate MASS charter

2004-09-29 17:10:14


On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Andrew Newton wrote:

I was using "bounce vs. bounce address" as examples of differences 
between functional requirements.  So, does "message content 
authentication" mean headers or body or both or either?

Can I ask Dave to comment if he still wants BATV included as part of MASS 
efforts considering that is covered by CLEAR BOF? He and John can also 
just send that directly to IETF as individual submission being result of
MARID work.

To me it just seems easier if in the charter we focus on message content 
(RFC2822) and not mix that with RFC2821 session data.

That being said, explicitly stating that one of the input proposals 
will be picked to be minimally refined works for me too.  It's just 
that discussion of all those "correct" design choices will happen in 
the picking of the one proposal making consensus harder to judge.  We 
already saw this with the MASS BoF in SD.

I don't think we're anywhere close to being ready to pick any one proposal.
As I suggested it might be better to work on requirements first and then 
base the choices of what goes into mass work based on what is able to fill
those requirements. And I don't think requirement document for automated
message body encryption is such a bad document to have (it does not need
to become an RFC, but internet draft is better then nothing and I don't 
think we'll be able to get all the requirements and discussions about it
fit directly into the group charter).

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>