Charlie (Watt),
Rod and Steve K. are complaining that I haven't been involved with PEM
for years. You're complaining that I'm participating too much. I guess
I'll just have to give up all hope of pleasing everybody.
I do understand. A lot of work has gone into PEM.
You ask why I even want to use PEM. Because the existing options are
incompatible. If PEM meets people's needs it's likely to be an effective
standard.
If on-line key management is, as you say, "the primary reason for the
existence of PEM", why does its title instead proclaim privacy? These are
related issues, but certainly not identical.
Is it possible that PEM, X.411, PGP etc. haven't been widely accepted
because none of them meets the primary need? Yes, I'm aware that some,
particularly PGP, also have special challenges. Still, as Tom asked, why
aren't even the messages on this list PEM compliant?
Doug