W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-tls@w3.org > April to June 1996

RE: Status (if any) of STLP?

From: Tom Stephens <tomste@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:10:54 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-88-MSG-960422191054Z-9171@tide19.microsoft.com>
To: "'sanders_james@tandem.com'" <sanders_james@tandem.com>
Cc: "'ietf-tls@w3.org'" <ietf-tls@w3.org>, "'tls-draft@w3.org'" <tls-draft@w3.org>
Jim,

As you pointed out, there has been some confusion over this issue.  It
was unfortunate that the strawman document was labeled as a draft in the
press and by others.  That was never our intention.  For that confusion,
we apologize.

Tom

>----------
>From: 	sanders_james@tandem.com[SMTP:sanders_james@tandem.com]
>Sent: 	Monday, April 22, 1996 10:39 AM
>To: 	Tom Stephens
>Cc: 	ietf-tls@w3.org; tls-draft@w3.org
>Subject: 	RE: Status (if  any) of STLP?
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>Win Treese and representatives from Microsoft and Netscape met a couple
>>of weeks ago to begin hammering out some of the components for the
>>foundation of a spec.  At that meeting, Microsoft precented our STLP
>>strawman document.  That document was an experiment by Microsoft to
>>determine how well SSL and PCT could be merged into one protocol - using
>>SSL as a base and adding PCT deltas.  Our goal was to deal with the
>>differences Microsoft and Netscape quickly so that the normal IETF
>>process would move forward without any detractions from either Microsoft
>>or Netscape.
>>
>>Tom
>-----------------------------
>Thanks Tom,
>
>I have no dispute with the events you describe, but process integrity
>would
>have been better served if you or Win had described this intent up
>front,
>and answered the queries by other folks who, like me, could not figure
>out
>what was going on.  This was especialy true in light of the press
>reports of
>"Draft submitted to IETF."  I believe that what you are saying is that
>no draft
>was "submitted," but rather "made available for review," albeit with
>rather late
>instructions as to location and ownership.
>
>All the above reflects my personal belief that this particular
>BOF-cum-WG
>should stretch to maintain the status of "Caesar's wife;" and also
>reflects
>my concern at the questions being raised by others last week.
>
>Thanks again for your prompt response.
>--Jim--
>
><< Jim Sanders, Staff Scientist - Transaction Security            >>
><< Network Application Services, Tandem Computers             >>
><< Voice: 408-285-4192; E-mail: sanders_james@tandem.com >>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 April 1996 15:22:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:34:46 EDT