-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf-
mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of George Gross
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 5:01 AM
To: domainkeys-feedbackbase01(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com
Cc: George Gross; ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Why we really don't require requirements
Hi,
you've asked alot of good questions, and I won't pretend that all
of them have an off the shelf answer. I simply haven't thought about all
the nooks and cranies of this solution. However, I think there is enough
known about how to make S/MIME viable that it should be explored, contrary
to what the tenor of your response would suggest...
You asked several fundemental service discovery kind of questions, here is
a synopsis of existing tools I know of that could solve that aspect of
this problem. For that matter, other tools that I don't know of may be
available.
It seems to me that the fact that there are good questions to ask about whether
existing protocols can/should be extended to meet the needs of this group's
charter would be an argument for not immediately limiting the scope to S/MIME
and PGP. I understand the benefits of using existing technology, and avoiding
problems people have already solved, but I for one do not think that a
discussion about whether using one of those protocols is likely to speed
development or adoption would be wasted time. That of course assumes that
people are reasonable and open to discussion so that a resolution of that
question is in fact possible.
In terms of our first actual deliverable which is a charter would it make
sense to have evaluation of existing email signature protocols against the
stated aims in the charter as a specific and early task?
Robert