On Fri, 4 May 2007 20:53, hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu said:
Do people in the working group support making the change Chris
proposes? It is unlikely to be required by the IESG and is unlikely
to delay the document either way. The question is whether people
believe that it would make the document better.
I fully agree with these comments and they have been the topic of many
discussions in the past 9 years. However, there is no really agreement
and clear signed messages are actually in wide spread use. Even if the
RFC would more strongly suggest the use of PGP/MIME, it won't change the
reality. For some widely deployed mail systems it is even not possible
to use PGP/MIME.
The clear signed messages are well defined and working, no reason to
ban them.
So for the sake of having a good and working standard now, we should not
open this fruitless discussion again but go ahead in the RFC process.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner