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

RE: proposed charter for TLS working group

From: Tom Stephens <tomste@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:30:16 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-88-MSG-960507213016Z-7779@tide21.microsoft.com>
To: "'Win Treese'" <treese@openmarket.com>, "'jis@mit.edu'" <jis@mit.edu>, "'Christopher Allen'" <ChristopherA@consensus.com>
Cc: "'ietf-tls@w3.org'" <ietf-tls@w3.org>
Christopher,

Microsoft is fully committed to STLP.  

A primary goal for Microsoft has always been the adoption of an open,
non-proprietary protocol under IETF change control.  Another goal has
been to ensure that this new protocol take into account the needs of not
just one group, but rather the needs of the of as many ISV's and users
as possible.  That is why we took SSL 3.0 as the basis for the STLP
strawman document and added PCT 2.0 deltas.  Beyond that, we have no
pre-conditions for the adoption of a protocol.  

Two weeks ago I posted to this alias an invitation for all interested
parties to meet and develop a draft which could be presented to this
working group at Montreal.  I make that proposal again.  Would you be
willing to be in the San Francisco Bay Area during the week of 5/27 (
time and location can be announced this week) and resolve the issues you
and the others on this alias have raised?  This would seem to be the
fastest, most efficient way of meeting the aggressive timeline that has
been proposed.


Tom Stephens
>----------
>From: 	Christopher Allen[SMTP:ChristopherA@consensus.com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, May 07, 1996 12:18 PM
>To: 	Win Treese; jis@mit.edu
>Cc: 	ietf-tls@w3.org
>Subject: 	Re: proposed charter for TLS working group
>
>At 7:43 PM  -0700 5/6/96, Win Treese wrote:
>>Goals and Milestones
>>
>>April 96 Agreement on charter and issues in current draft.
>
>I think this date is fine for "agreement on charter" -- but I don't
>like
>"agreement on issues in current draft". If you are speaking of the
>technical draft, I don't think we've agreed that any of the strawmen so
>far
>should go further. The MicroSoft strawman is full of possible holes and
>has
>some falacies in it's basic overview of intentions (at least 4 of the
>items
>claimed to be "fixed" over SSL 3.0 are false statements). At this
>point,
>only SSL 3.0 is actually well underway with a number of implementations
>available now and others coming in the next month or so.
>
>>July 96  Final draft for Secure Transport Layer Protocol ("STLP")
>
>I think this is far too soon to expect a final draft of STLP, given a
>lack
>of agreement on the strawman, nor a commitment from MicroSoft to
>support a
>STLP derived from SSL 3.0. I think some of the issues they brought up
>(for
>instance pre-encrypted data, password authentication, etc.) could be
>brought into an SSL  style framework (call it SSL 3.1) that would be a
>first step toward being officially STLP.
>
>>Nov 96   Working group "Last Call"
>
>In spite of my problem with the July date for the final draft, I do
>think
>it is possible to have the working group last call by November.
>
>>Dec 96   Offer to IESG for IETF "Last Call"
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>..Christopher Allen                  Consensus Development
>Corporation..
>..<ChristopherA@consensus.com>                 1563 Solano Avenue
>#355..
>..                                             Berkeley, CA
>94707-2116..
>..<http://www.consensus.com/>             o510/559-1500 
>f510/559-1505..
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 1996 17:30:51 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:34:48 EDT