So the idea is to pursue these two envelope-related proposals in
CLEAR and leave MASS to pursue authentication of the message header
and contents.
Agreed. BATV belongs in CLEAR. If we want a proposal for PK envelope
signatures (which I don't), there's SES.
The other approach is to take what is offered and is being tested, an
seek the minimum modifications that the working group feels are
necessary.
Yeah. I think that if we look at IETF history, groups that have
endorsed technology that exists with minimal changes have done better
than those that have created paper designs either from scratch or by
making a frankenspec from unrelated pieces of separate proposals.
Even if, say, Domain Keys, isn't perfect, we can at least ask and
answer useful questions about its implementation and performance
since it's been implemented.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly.