> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-
> mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Gross
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 5:01 AM
> To: domainkeys-feedbackbase01@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: George Gross; ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Why we really don't require requirements
>
>
> Hi,
>
> you've asked alot of good questions, and I won't pretend that all
> of them have an off the shelf answer. I simply haven't thought about all
> the nooks and cranies of this solution. However, I think there is enough
> known about how to make S/MIME viable that it should be explored, contrary
> to what the tenor of your response would suggest...
>
> You asked several fundemental service discovery kind of questions, here is
> a synopsis of existing tools I know of that could solve that aspect of
> this problem. For that matter, other tools that I don't know of may be
> available.
It seems to me that the fact that there are good questions to ask about whether existing protocols can/should be extended to meet the needs of this group's charter would be an argument for not immediately limiting the scope to S/MIME and PGP. I understand the benefits of using existing technology, and avoiding problems people have already solved, but I for one do not think that a discussion about whether using one of those protocols is likely to speed development or adoption would be wasted time. That of course assumes that people are reasonable and open to discussion so that a resolution of that question is in fact possible.
In terms of our first actual deliverable which is a charter would it make sense to have evaluation of existing email signature protocols against the stated aims in the charter as a specific and early task?
Robert