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 16:24:37 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-88-MSG-960507232437Z-8630@abash1.microsoft.com>
To: "'Eric Murray'" <ericm@lne.com>
Cc: "'ietf-tls@w3.org'" <ietf-tls@w3.org>
In my response I was referring to an eventual TLS working group draft
standard and not the MS strawman document.  As for TLS vs. STLP, I could
support either or neither...whatever works best for the group.

In regards to the meeting, I understand your concern.  The meeting
minutes and any documents coming out of the meeting should be posted to
this alias for entire working group to review.  As I understand
procedures, nothing coming out of this meeting will have a higher or
lesser status than any other proposals submitted for the consideration
of the working group.  

>From: 	Eric Murray[SMTP:ericm@lne.com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, May 07, 1996 3:38 PM
>To: 	Tom Stephens
>Cc: 	ietf-tls@w3.org
>Subject: 	Re: proposed charter for TLS working group
>Tom Stephens writes:
>> Christopher,
>> Microsoft is fully committed to STLP.  
>By 'STLP' do you mean "Microsoft's proposal" or "the eventual
>standard that the TLS working group produces"?
>"STLP" has become overloaded- some people take it mean Microsoft's
>"strawman", others are using it as the name of the standard
>that this group is discussing.
>I'd like to suggest that we use a different name for the standard
>that the working group is supposed to produce.  I have been
>calling it "TLS", I would like to propose that we call it that.
>Using a name that is not owned by any corporate entity should
>reduce the amount of political maneuvering that is going on.
>> 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.
>While I applaud your willingness to meet and to accomplish
>things, I'm not sure that calling a meeting like this doesn't
>voliate the spirit of the IETF.  Only a few of the people who
>have an interest in the working-group would be able to attend.
>I think it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the IETF to 
>do as much as possible via the mailing list, where all can participate.
>Having said that, if there's a meeting in the bay area I won't miss it.
>Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com 
>PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E
>27 29 AF
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 1996 19:25:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:58 UTC