On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Specifically the likes of Meta-Signatures has to be out of scope. If the
group is going to be open for anyone to put their 'me-too' scheme on the
table we will never finish.
META-Signatures was developed out of the ideas and proposals introduced
at previous BoF (out of 3 of them) as was DKIM (out of 2 of them). Both
are valid for considerations as part of development process of MASS
systems. I'm not aware of anybody else working on proposals like that
as part of MASS system development process, so your fear of too many
choices and too many schemes does not seem to apply.
The point is surely the originality of the ideas proposed to the WG.
Innovation above and beyond the core spec should be encouraged. Demands
that we evaluate six alternative ways to skin the same cat are surely
unproductive.
You surely have not read META Signatures documents to consider it to be
the same as DKIM. There are several core ideas that they share but
META-Signatures also has several important core ideas that are not part
of the DKIM, so this has nothing to do with syntax and semantics at all.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net