On 7/14/2011 1:45 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
The first requirement is for proponents to provide much more explicit
details about what is being proposed in the use of CMS.
...
Well, I don't really follow your logic there, but we're not
aiming to do a new thing here.
...
Anyway the path for developing yet another crypto format
is a pretty well trodden one and IMO CMS is the best current
starting point for that process, so I think its entirely
reasonable to ask people why they disagree with that.
It does of course presume familiarity with CMS, but then
that should be a prerequisite for working on woes, really.
Steve,
Oh. This working group is merely a CMS encoding exercise? That was not at all
clear previously.
I suspect I am not the only one who missed this as the anchoring and inflexible
premise to the work. (For reference, that requires even stronger language than
is in the current draft.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
woes mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes
