Let's move single port/port mapping discussion to TLS list

At 4:33 AM -0800 2/6/97, Jeff Williams wrote:
>  I thought you were in favor of ONE port.

I am a short term pragmatist, and a long term idealist. I believe that the
best resolution is to fix the existing assignments, add a minimal number of
new ports so people can interoperate now, admit and recognize the long term
problem, and design a better solution as soon as we can.

BTW, I encourage any further discussion on single port/port mapping
solutions to move over *exclusively* to the TLS Working Group list, as this
is obviously a problem that requires some work to be able to complete.

The discussion list for IETF-TLS Working Group is at <IETF-TLS@W3.ORG>. You
subscribe and unsubscribe by sending to IETF-TLS-REQUEST@W3.ORG with
subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT of the message. Archives of the
list are at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-tls>.

I wanted to include the SSL-Talk list subscribers in the general context of
the port assignments, as that list is more heavily weighed with actual
implementors than the TLS list is (i.e. they care more about what the final
assignments will be as they want to ship product).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
..Christopher Allen                  Consensus Development Corporation..
..<ChristopherA@consensus.com>                 1563 Solano Avenue #355..
..                                             Berkeley, CA 94707-2116..
..Home of "SSL Plus:                      o510/559-1500  f510/559-1505..
..  SSL 3.0 Integration Suite(tm)" <http://www.consensus.com/SSLPlus/>..

Received on Thursday, 6 February 1997 18:28:35 UTC