On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:59:48 -0800 (PST), william(at)elan.net 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,
BATV is a meta-syntax that supports multiple schemes, with a basic scheme
provided. When Meng asked me if BATV was a "framework" I did not realize he
meant it somehow encompassing specifications that have nothing to do with BATV.
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).
What is the requirement for multiple signatures?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
www.brandenburg.com