Re: status of wg specifications

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

> 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.

I disagree -- I think end-to-end signed data is extremely important
and should be specified.  If the specs do not define the framework for
end-to-end signed data, then I definitely believe we have a problem
that needs to be addressed.

> John

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       [email protected]             www.ihtfp.com


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