RE: baseline CPIM security
Dave Crocker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.impp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 07:59 PM 10/3/2002 -0400, Peterson, Jon wrote: >While no specific understanding of CPIM's requirements was ever formalized >in our charter, to date I have worked under the assumption that the >requirements of RFC2779 apply to CPIM How can a gateway between heterogeneous systems impose any "end to end" requirements. The job of a gateway is to translate between heterogeneities. >- in the sense that two CPIM-compliant >protocols communicating with one another through a CPIM gateway must meet >the requirements of RFC2779. At which point, CPIM is no longer a gateway spec. It is a spec for a single, entire, participating system. It is exactly the inability to develop an 'entire system' that motivated the focus on a gateway system that produced the original CPIM specification. >Personally, I believe this is a desirable requirement That must be the mistake I am making. I thought the dominant goal was practicality, not just desirability. That is, I thought that the "desire" was to provide a specification that would permit interfacing to systems, rather than require replacing them. >We should probably have consensus on the requirements before delving >further into the mechanism. Yes that would be nice. Again, my mistake probably is that I thought that we had consensus some years ago that CPIM was to be a gateway spec. Instead it appears that it has returned to the pre-CPIM, original goal of producing the One True IM protocol. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]