--- James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-mailsig(_at_)elistx(_dot_)com> wrote:
What I don't get - and perhaps it's just me in which case I would
appreciate being educated - is how the problem stated in the charter of
this group (adding signatures to email) is a different problem than has
already been solved 5 times over for email?
How can something be "solved" 5 times? Why wasn't the first solution good
enough?
The very fact that there are five "solutions" as you claim, clearly suggests
that each of those solutions have problems or constraints that don't make then
attractive to this charter. It's a bit like saying there are five ways of
sending data over the Internet, why do we need another one? The apparently
subtle differences are important.
In particular, non-intrusive encapsulation and header protection are not well
covered by any other solution in their current form. Also, you suggest that any
of the previous solutions "could" use key fetching from the DNS, well, sure,
but the specifics need to be written down don't they? This is the place to do
it.
Also, some of the previous specifications come with a lot of baggage that adds
un-necessary complexity for this particular problem-space. Given that
implementation of these previous "solutions" do not exist in most of the
Internet's email servers - the question arises as to whether the burden of
implementation and deployment is also a barrier that needs to be substantially
reduced.
Having said all that, if you believe a profile of S/MIME or similar can be made
to address these needs, then I think the right thing to do is write down the
specifics and offer it to this group.
Mark.