On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Guy wrote:
Since then someone speaking for BATV said that SES is BATV, or part of the
BATV framework. Maybe he was indicating SES is similar to BATV. I was
unclear about that. I also don't know any details about BATV.
Meng is the one who said since BATV is framework than SES can be considered
part of BATV and so its not completely "untested" and several people are
using it. I don't think Meng understand technically the differences that
exist between BATV and SES, etc. But you should thank Meng from bring SES
up at all and giving to the meeting URL on where to see more about it.
Now the reason I'm actually telling you about it is that I spend some deal
of time trying to talk to Doag (and tomorrow will try it on CLEAR meeting)
that BATV format needs to be extended to accomdate multiple types of
"signatures" at the same time.
If I can convince them (which is not likely, but they have 0 deployment
right now, so maybe they are little more open to more extendable format
and its not a big change), then I think SES people and SRS really should
change to fit into BATV framework so that all can co-exist together
(right now that is not possible).
My preference is to have something like this:
method=data/method=data/.../lp=username(_at_)domain(_dot_)com
i.e.
batv=data/ses=data/lp=username(_at_)domain(_dot_)com
And with SRS it can then become:
batv=data/ses=data/lp=username#origdomain.com/forwardname(_at_)newdomain(_dot_)com
P.S. The talk with Doag was very education on several other issues,
despite what you guys may think he's very very good at technical level.
I'll tell you more in posts tomorrow about the kind of problem that he
brought up that I think we should work more on.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net