ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why we don't require requirements

2004-09-30 21:10:29

In <20041001035622(_dot_)15018(_dot_)qmail(_at_)xuxa(_dot_)iecc(_dot_)com> John 
Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> writes:

Pardon my ignorance but what proposals are likely to be considered by
MASS?  Which ones have been moved to CLEAR?

There were a bunch presented at the MASS BOF at IETF 60.  See the draft
minutes at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00025.html

Yes, I read those minutes and even replied to it last week.  See:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00103.html

That doesn't really answer my question though.  In particular, I'm
concerned about this working group trying to cover different
compatible and orthogonal proposals the way MARID tried to do.  



I think it makes a lot of sense to consider things like DomainKeys and
a simplified S/MIME to be in a separate category than ABBS/SES/BATV.  

Agreed.  The presentations included DK and two derivatives of S/MIME.
BATV was presented but has moved to CLEAR so we don't have to worry
about it.

Is CLEAR also going to consider ABBS and SES, or is it just about
BATV?


-wayne


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