- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:03:44 -0500
- To: ietf-tls@w3.org
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 Netscape's authority attributes, and Microsoft's secret key authentication be included in a manner that would be inclusive in the final perposal document. Reguards, > >-- >You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein >coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com > > > Jeffrey A. Williams SR.Internet Network Eng. CEO., IEG., INC., Representing PDS .Ltd. Web: http://www.pds-link.com Phone: 214-793-7445 (Direct Line) Director of Network Eng. and Development IEG. INC.
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 1996 21:28:07 UTC