RE: Status (if any) of STLP?
As you pointed out, there has been some confusion over this issue. It
was unfortunate that the strawman document was labeled as a draft in the
press and by others. That was never our intention. For that confusion,
>Sent: Monday, April 22, 1996 10:39 AM
>To: Tom Stephens
>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>Subject: RE: Status (if any) of STLP?
>>Win Treese and representatives from Microsoft and Netscape met a couple
>>of weeks ago to begin hammering out some of the components for the
>>foundation of a spec. At that meeting, Microsoft precented our STLP
>>strawman document. That document was an experiment by Microsoft to
>>determine how well SSL and PCT could be merged into one protocol - using
>>SSL as a base and adding PCT deltas. Our goal was to deal with the
>>differences Microsoft and Netscape quickly so that the normal IETF
>>process would move forward without any detractions from either Microsoft
>I have no dispute with the events you describe, but process integrity
>have been better served if you or Win had described this intent up
>and answered the queries by other folks who, like me, could not figure
>what was going on. This was especialy true in light of the press
>"Draft submitted to IETF." I believe that what you are saying is that
>was "submitted," but rather "made available for review," albeit with
>instructions as to location and ownership.
>All the above reflects my personal belief that this particular
>should stretch to maintain the status of "Caesar's wife;" and also
>my concern at the questions being raised by others last week.
>Thanks again for your prompt response.
><< Jim Sanders, Staff Scientist - Transaction Security >>
><< Network Application Services, Tandem Computers >>
><< Voice: 408-285-4192; E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org >>