RE: New SCMP Discussion List

  snip....


I assume that the SCMP authors have done their duty to research the
field and have studied EDIINT specifications (though they don't
reference them in their draft.) I can see that the SCMP authors might
have missed some points in the current set of EDIINT specifications
(so did I for a long time.) And I can also see that the low activity
and delay in release of drafts to RFCs is a bad vital sign for the
EDIINT group. However, rather than quickly creating just another
protocol to do basically the same thing (with basically the same
means,) I would have found it more appropriate for the SCMP authors to
stir up some discussions in EDIINT about the missing features (e.g.,
the Time-To-Live real time feature.)


Rik Drummond: The seemingly lack of progress on the EDIINT IETF list is not
because of lack of effort, but because of the s/mime issues and our need to
re-adjust the basic spec to reflect those changes. There is major work
happening on the second spec based on http right now. So I would suggest you
not start from scratch. The http version will do the Time-to-Live real time
feature I believe.... To show how important the EDIINT specs are deemed 12
vendors have already implemented them.

EDIINT WG Chairperson






.... snip