I agree.
--
Arvel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>; "IETF MASS WG"
<ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: MASS BOF Agenda and Proposed charter
I think it would be good to be explicit that this is a standards track
WG.
If it is not a standards track WG I don't see the point.
-----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 Dave
Crocker
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:01 PM
To: IETF MASS WG
Subject: Re: MASS BOF Agenda and Proposed charter
> > > First, is the intent of this WG to create standard
track RFCs? I
> > > believe the MARID WG was chartered to do so.
> > The draft charter specifies the goals of the working group.
> >
> Uh, yeah, but I don't think that answers my question.
> This BOF seeks to initiate the MASS working group, to produce
> specifications that permit authentication of message
headers during transit,
> ...
> 2/06 Submit to IESG - MASS signature specification
The charter does not state "standards track" explicitly.
That's because the
focus is on the technical work, rather than the status label.
I didn't realize your focus was on the label, but thought
that you were asking
about the content of the working group's output.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net