W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Feedback on draft-burke-content-signature-00.txt

From: Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:37:28 +0000
Message-ID: <4D91FC7F.20009@redhat.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
CC: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On 3/29/11 4:19 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Just to make sure we have a clear base for discussion: DOSETA is not DKIM.
> DKIM is a fully-integrated email identification scheme.
> Although DOSETA documents the same core technology, the specification is
> organized very differently and is intended to be easy to adapt to other
> applications.
> The DOSETA documents are also is newer and very much subject to changes
> (improvements). These documents are only a few weeks old, although of
> course, much of the text was taken from the older and more mature DKIM
> specifications.
> To put things baldly: I made an initial pass at organizing the DOSETA
> spec in a way that would support much better modularization, to support
> use in other application. But like any writing I do, it needs others to
> suggest changes. By "needs" I mean /must/ be obtained. I'm quite happy
> with the current version... as a start. It needs other eyes and some
> testing to provide guidance for how to make it better, in terms of
> organization, technical design, and wording.

Is there a specific mail list you discuss DOSETA on?  I'd like to join 
the conversation or at least listen.  At a minimum I can provide 
feedback from implementing, integrating, and applying the protocol.

Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 09:25:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:56 UTC