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 16:53:30 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-88-MSG-960507235330Z-8819@tide19.microsoft.com>
To: "'Eric Murray'" <ericm@lne.com>, "'Tom Weinstein'" <tomw@netscape.com>
Cc: "'ietf-tls@w3.org'" <ietf-tls@w3.org>
In what areas are you in violent agreement with Eric?  

That TLS should be used instead of STLP in referring to the standard?

That this may violate the spirit of IETF and we should do as much as
possible via the mailing list, but that you will attend the meeting at
the end of the month in the Bay Area if it is held?

Tom Stephens

>----------
>From: 	Tom Weinstein[SMTP:tomw@netscape.com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, May 07, 1996 4:36 PM
>To: 	Eric Murray
>Cc: 	Tom Stephens; ietf-tls@w3.org
>Subject: 	Re: proposed charter for TLS working group
>
>I am in violent agreement with Eric.
>
>-- 
>One tag to rule them all, One tag to find them; One tag | Tom Weinstein
>to bring them all, and in the source tree bind them.    |
>tomw@netscape.com
>
>
>Eric Murray wrote:
>> 
>> 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 diferent 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 manouvering 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  http://www.lne.com/ericm
>> 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 19:53:36 EDT

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