At 03:48 PM 10/16/96 -0400, you wrote: > >> I would like to suggest to Win Treese, the TLS-WG chairman, that we table >> the two proposals for now, and settle on moving SSL 3.0 into TLS 1.0 *as >> is*, however, with some clarifications to the spec. >> >> I would like to see that early in November a small group of engineers who >> have actually *implemented* SSL 3.0 get together with the current SSL 3.0 >> authors to clarify the spec. *Not* change the spec, only clarify any >> ambiguities (we have found in writing SSLRef 3.0, SSL Plus, and an SSL >> Fortezza implemenation a number of ambiguities, and I'm sure others have as >> well.) >> >> This cleaned up spec would be called TLS 1.0 and published as an internet >> draft for final comments in time for the December IETF meeting in San Jose. I also concur here. I have no problem with Davids assumption. Not sure that others will. however I would like to see a refrence to each from one another. Reguards, > >I concur. > >There appears to be consensus for having separate specification documents, >one describing the Record Layer, the other describing the various messages >that ride on top of it. Several people have declared support for a modular >document structure, none have opposed it. Anyone opposed should speak up now. > > > Jeffrey A. Williams SR.Internet Network Eng. CEO., IEG., INC., Representing PDS .Ltd. Web: http://www.pds-link.com Phone: 214-793-7445 (Direct Line) Director of Network Eng. and Development IEG. INC.Received on Wednesday, 16 October 1996 16:59:19 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:34:54 EDT