Re: Revised Draft Charter

sounds like a reasonable change.

I personally would have said "nodes" not computers (never can tell when
we'll have to update those light switches and garage door openers to IPv6)

>Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:09:20 -0500
>Resent-Message-Id: <199604061909.OAA19243@www19.w3.org>
>Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:08:00 -0800
>To: ietf-tls@w3.org
>From: Paul Hoffman <paulh@imc.org>
>Subject: Re: Revised Draft Charter
>X-List-URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-tls
>Resent-From: ietf-tls@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <ietf-tls@w3.org> archive/latest/16
>X-Loop: ietf-tls@w3.org
>Sender: ietf-tls-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: ietf-tls-request@w3.org
>
>The charter looks good to me. I have one small concern that, if others
>agree, could be easily resolved.
>
>>Several methods of providing a secure and authenticated channel
>>between a client and a server on the Internet above the TCP layer have
>>appeared.  The objective of this proposed working group is to write
>>standards track RFC(s) for protocols using the currently available
>>Internet drafts as a basis.
>
>These two sentences together make it sound lke the protocol will be for
>client-server channels only. As the HTTP WG has discovered, calling
>something a "client" or a "server" can cause all sorts of problems when you
>later have "proxies". Further, we may want STLP to work in peer-to-peer
>situations.
>
>I suggest we reword the first sentence to read:
>
>Several methods of providing a secure and authenticated channel
>between computers on the Internet above the TCP layer have appeared.
>
>
>
>

                  Rodney Thayer           ::         rodney@sabletech.com
                  Sable Technology Corp   ::              +1 617 332 7292
                  246 Walnut St           ::         Fax: +1 617 332 7970     
                  Newton MA 02160 USA     ::  http://www.shore.net/~sable
                           "Developers of communications software"

Received on Sunday, 7 April 1996 15:14:22 UTC