At 08:23 PM 5/19/2005 -0400, Chuck Mead wrote:
David MacQuigg wrote:
> I'm with you in spirit, just not confident of the outcome, and
> frustrated with the deadlock.
Oh boy... I have to ask you..... were you around last year for the MARID
battles?
If not you should go and read some of my MARID articles at
moongroup.com. Perhaps then you will be less frustrated! :-)
I think we could avoid these problems by focusing on a much simpler
standard, just the items that are needed for inter-operability, and having
some group leaders that are well-respected, neutral, and strong enough to
dismiss the implausible arguments. There will be intense arguments even
over the simplest issues, but at some point, the leaders will have to say -
Sorry, that just isn't a plausible argument.
Luckily, we don't have to decide which identity to make standard. That
complex issue can be left to each method to work out for itself. Same with
all the issues relating to DNS loading. None of this needs to be in an
inter-operability standard.
The three simple things that need to be standardized are:
1) How does the sender declare its identity to the receiver.
2) Where does the receiver look for the first authentication record.
3) How does the receiver pass on its authentication results.
If it is not obvious that these three items can be done in a simple,
neutral way, please look at purl.net/macquigg/email -
draft-macquigg-authent-IOP.htm
--
Dave
************************************************************ *
* David MacQuigg, PhD email: david_macquigg at yahoo.com * *
* IC Design Engineer phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************ *