[Standards-JIG] Re: Questions on RFC 3923
gyldenskjold at mail.dk
Thu Jan 20 00:55:46 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 00:38, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> In article <41433.5410263904$1102596316 at news.gmane.org>,
> Jens Mikkelsen <gyldenskjold at mail.dk> wrote:
> > Thanks. I have looked at xmlenc and it seems much more usefull for
> > Jabber than S/MIME. Have you totally given up on the JEP you wrote? It
> > seems that you have accepted the RFC 3923, but I must admit that it
> > seems totally wrong for Jabber.
> That seems to be the general opinion. :-)
> > But I must admit I am having a difficult time to see the good in RFC
> > 3923.
> Hopefully we can come up with something better someday....
Are there any plans on this getting started? I have seen some
suggestions on new JEPs, that seems reasonable. Why haven't these been
accepted? What work is required?
In the same process JEP-0045 could be extended to encryption, as we have
talked about before.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Standards