Re: Merged Transport Layer Protocol Development

David P. Kemp writes:
> There has indeed been some unfortunate confusion surrounding the
> discussion paper, but it's difficult to comprehend some of the ideas
> being bandied about lately - "sub-rosa" dealings, a Netscape-Microsoft
> conspiracy to bypass the IETF ?!?, etc.

I'm not sure anyone has said outright that there's some sort
of consipracy, although many have noted that the recent
events could be construed as evidence of one...

> As I see it, two mistakes were made:
> 1 - the creation of two mailing lists, and,
>     when one would have been sufficient
> 2 - the discussion paper was widely distributed both by hardcopy and
>     email to people who had previously commented on either SSL or PCT,
>     but was not posted to either of the above lists nor to the SSL
>     or PCT lists.

The paper was _not_ very widely distributed- I was an early reviewer of
SSL3 (my name's listed in the draft as such) yet I didn't receive
a copy.  Neither did anyone else I know who was a reviewer of SSL3.

> But to further dispel any Watergate-type speculation ("What did he
> know and when did he know it?")

"Hey, there's 19 minutes of this crypto protocol spec that
have been erased!"

> My only criticism of this working group is that the chairman has
> not yet taken an active role in moderating the discussion.  Perhaps
> that will change soon.

I wish it would, and would like to politely suggest to the
chairman that if he has time to conduct what should be working
group business in private then he should make time to post some
email about it.

Eric Murray
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Received on Monday, 22 April 1996 21:40:23 UTC