On Dec 28, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
Another question to think about is whether the IETF really wants to
make a
fifth attempt in the email signature area, so far it has done PEM,
MOSS, PGP
& S/MIME.
I think that what we have here is an application protocol rather than
a core
infrastructure platform. The IETF has never been that comfortable at
the
application layer, particularly the consumer facing part of it. How is
an
organization going to work out best security practices for HTML email
when
the majority of the members cannot see the value of the idea?
I have a very clear idea of what I want to achieve and I believe that
my
view of the problem to be solved and the approach to solving it is
shared by
the majority of the application oriented people. I also believe that
there
is simply no point in trying to explain the value of that concept to
network
focused people who use elm or pine as their mailer.
Why resort to an ad hominem argument? I read this stuff as the worst
legacy
of some antispam lists. It dumbs down the discussion.
Mark
The crypto packaging and some of the keying infrastructure is the only
part
of this problem that is within the scope of what the IETF is
comfortable
addressing. Most of the design decisions and most of the specification
work
that needs to take place is in the user interface and human factors
space.
Having just gone through the MARID experience I have no desire to start
another standards effort on the same topic and with the same cast of
characters in the same forum.