RE: comments on draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05

On 29 August 2002 11:33, John D. Ramsdell wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
> In my previous message, my comments were meant to apply only to the 
> content that is being signed.  I was not arguing that we pick one 
> format to encapsulate the signed content.  My point was we need to 
> define the analog of PIDF for subscription requests.
> 
> You are correct in that we must deal with the issue you raise at some 
> point.  I just wanted to note that my message did not address your 
> topic.  I have never broached this topic, however, I seem to remember 
> Jon Peterson suggesting that S/MIME have a distinguished role at one 
> time.
> 
> John

In that case, we have been talking at cross purposes because this it
what I meant when I introduced the concept of 'formats' into this
thread.

As far as notification format, we have already agreed that this should
be msgfmt in parallel to the IM format but with its own MIME type and
own profile definition. We certainly need to populate CPIM Appendix B
with this.

I didn't realise we had started talking about subscription requests now.
My impression from the Yokohama minutes was that we'd deal with those
after. Sorry, I'll try to keep up.

Adrian.