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,
we apologize.


>Sent: 	Monday, April 22, 1996 10:39 AM
>To: 	Tom Stephens
>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
>>or Netscape.
>Thanks Tom,
>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
>reports of
>"Draft submitted to IETF."  I believe that what you are saying is that
>no draft
>was "submitted," but rather "made available for review," albeit with
>rather late
>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: >>

Received on Monday, 22 April 1996 15:22:35 UTC