On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Edward Shallow wrote:
How do the proponents of the META Signatures proposal feel on this
announcement ?
William ?
1. We all knew they were working on merger since beginning of the year
(some of us knew even before that), nothing has seriously changed as
details are still not available and only promises.
2. If what I fear about features that went into merged solution are true,
I doubt I'd support it. Again details are what is important.
3. I've actually done quite a bit more of private research and had been
working entire last month on things related to signatures, identities,
email authorization, syntax & needed features. Paper about this is
already written, it directly relates to both MARID and MASS and what I
propose will probably be quite interesting for all to read.
As part of that research, I ended up working more on META Signatures
and right now finishing 0.21 doc (probably will be done this week, time
permitting). It became a lot more like framework (i.e. like x.509 but
in very short text form in header) with quite nice syntax and features.
But based on what I hear the group is not interested in header signature
framework, too bad...
But its quite possible that we'll find that needs of email messaging
change or some other message protocol needs it, so you should expect
that at the very least it'll all end up being documented as ID so IETF
could use it if it decides to and current syntax looks really nice too
(no more ugliness of separate META-Signature and META-Auth, everything
fits well together). You should also assume that I'll pursue EDigest
towards standardization separately no matter what although if not
done within WG it may take quite some time considering how ietf works
(but I'll try to get started sooner and get Edigest into ID this month)
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net