Re: Busted TLS Schedule, and a Proposal for Closure

At 03:48 PM 10/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>> I would like to suggest to Win Treese, the TLS-WG chairman, that we table
>> the two proposals for now, and settle on moving SSL 3.0 into TLS 1.0 *as
>> is*, however, with some clarifications to the spec.
>> I would like to see that early in November a small group of engineers who
>> have actually *implemented* SSL 3.0 get together with the current SSL 3.0
>> authors to clarify the spec. *Not* change the spec, only clarify any
>> ambiguities (we have found in writing SSLRef 3.0, SSL Plus, and an SSL
>> Fortezza implemenation a number of ambiguities, and I'm sure others have as
>> well.)
>> This cleaned up spec would be called TLS 1.0 and published as an internet
>> draft for final comments in time for the December IETF meeting in San Jose.

  I also concur here.

  I have no problem with Davids assumption.  Not sure that others will.
however I would like to see a refrence to each from one another.


>I concur.
>There appears to be consensus for having separate specification documents,
>one describing the Record Layer, the other describing the various messages
>that ride on top of it. Several people have declared support for a modular
>document structure, none have opposed it. Anyone opposed should speak up now.
Jeffrey A. Williams
SR.Internet Network Eng. 
CEO., IEG., INC.,  Representing PDS .Ltd.
Phone: 214-793-7445 (Direct Line)
Director of Network Eng. and Development IEG. INC.

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 1996 16:59:19 UTC