From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Sat Sep 16 2000 - 15:54:02 CDT
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?= (list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de) writes:
> To: usenet-format@clari.net
Still using the old address. :-)
> Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> schrieb/wrote:
> > 1. Signed headers
> > A. Do we proceed on the basis of draft-lindsey-usefor-signed-00.txt?
>
> Just for curiousity: What's the difference between:
>
> > YES
> > David Barr but only after our base proposed standards doc is
> > submitted.
>
> and
>
> > NO
> > Claus Faerber Wait until we have finished the basic format
> > specification.
>
> ?
>
It appears that Charles's question wasn't very precise. I responded
with an unreserved YES, as Charles's proposal appears to me be a
good base for further discussion and could well be the core of a
final proposal. I didn't even consider that I should relate the
signed-headers draft with the main work for Usefor. Of course, I
fully agree that our main task should be Usefor, and I don't think
we should spend much time on Signed Headers, until we have gotten
a 1036 successor out of the door. As we don't cope with discussing
to many things at the same time, we cannot both discuss Signed Headers
and other stuff.
One alternative though, would be to do a quick round on Charles's draft
to brush it up, and then just let it go as an experimental RFC which
we can come back to in 18-24 months time. (Which seems to be a
realistic time frame for getting a new standards-track RFC out.)
The most striking conclusion of Charles's poll was that so few answered.
Either very few people follow this list these days, or there was some-
thing flawed with the poll.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se