Wouldn't it make more sense to have proposals for new algorithms handled
by the CFRG or some other standing committee?
If the S/MIME transport definition is correct then adding in more
algorithms should simply be a question of defining the appropriate OID,
URI or other identifier required by each protocol.
What we need is a template that allows that type of information to be
set out in a standard form. Ideally this would allow single stop
shopping so that one submission would result in the appropriate
identifiers being generated for each relevant protocol.
None of this would guarantee that anyone would actually use the
algorithm of course. But it would save working group etc. time.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Blake
Ramsdell
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:15 PM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com
Subject: No meeting at IETF 63
There only appears to be one significant issue open for our group
right now, which surrounds the adoption of new signature algorithms.
This does not appear to be overly contentious, so we are not
planning
to meet at IETF 63 in Paris.
Blake
--
Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com