Re: status of wg specifications

[email protected] (John D. Ramsdell) writes:

> For the record, I think CPIM-MSGFMT and DATETIME are well done and
> good to go, as you put it, but I continue to think that CPIM is
> flawed.

I seem to have lost my focus.  Given that CPIM is a done deal, I
should not have revisited my complaints about it.  What I mean to
focus on is the search for a subscription data format that can be used
to exchange signed subscription requests between systems that use
different protocols much in the way that CPIM-MSGFMT allows signed
instant messages to be exchanged between such systems.  Sending signed
notifications though gateways appears to be a lost cause.  Sending
signed subscription requests appears to be compatible with the current
CPIM draft.

John

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html


  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]