Re: Busted TLS Schedule, and a Proposal for Closure

At 03:44 PM 10/16/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Christopher Allen wrote:
>> As I recall there were only two technical proposals on the table in
>> August and September (both of which I think were late), Netscape's
>> authority attributes, and Microsoft's secret key authentication. I
>> have not seen on this list sufficient consensus to move forward on
>> either of them.
>> 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.
>> SSL 3.0 is already widely deployed. Both Microsoft and Netscape have
>> it now in their browsers and servers, and many other companies now
>> have SSL 3.0 browsers, web servers, and non-web application under
>> development with SSL 3.0.
>> Thus I believe that is appropriate that the continued revisions of the
>> SSL 3.0 standard move to IETF change control, and it's authors seem
>> willing to allow it to do so. Given this I think SSL 3.0 is an
>> appropriate starting point for IETF and TLS-WG, and that the the
>> TLS-WG should ratify it with the ambiguities cleaned up.
>> From that solid base we can move toward TLS 1.1, which then might
>> include Microsoft's and Netscape's proposals.
>I think this is an excellent idea.

  I agree with Tom here.  I would add that when seperating the two documents
that mutual refrence to each be included in each.  I would also think that
 authority attributes, and Microsoft's secret key authentication be included in
a manner that would be inclusive in the final perposal document.


>You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
>coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      |
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 21:28:07 UTC