On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 21:22, Jim Fenton wrote:
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
John Levine wrote:
I agree. I also see no point in having a session until there are
some concrete proposals for signature systems, preferably with
multiple implementations, to discuss.
Excellent point. A session might make sense given a set of concrete
proposals to focus discussion. It certainly has some small chance of
working, whereas without it I see no hope whatsoever.
Both DomainKeys and Identified Internet Mail are concrete proposals
(active Internet-Drafts) and have multiple implementations. There is a
lot of sentiment that even this is too many, and we need to quickly
(before IETF 62) merge DK and IIM; this seems counter to the requirement
to have multiple proposals.
Year end is often a stressful time, and worse when dealing with a flood
of email over a dial-up instead of visiting. : )
There are implementation differences, of course, between these to
implemented proposals, but would focusing upon architectural differences
help clarify what needs to be resolved? Overlooking the robustness of
any specific scheme, could these differences be expressed as general
goals, bringing this into the language of a charter?
-Doug