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.


>From: 	sanders_james@tandem.com[SMTP:sanders_james@tandem.com]
>Sent: 	Monday, April 22, 1996 7:53 AM
>To: 	Tom Stephens
>Cc: 	ietf-tls@w3.org; tls-draft@w3.org
>Subject: 	Re: Status (if  any) of STLP?
>On Friday 4/19, at 8:24 PM, Tom Stephens wrote:
>>Tls-draft was created specifically as a forum for the discussion of the
>>Microsoft STLP strawman document.  The reason for this is that the STLP
>>strawman document is not an official IETF document.  Win Treese,
>>Microsoft and Netscape did not want this document to be confused in any
>>way with the actual spec that is being developed by the working group.
>>However, since the consensus of the emails is to discuss the STLP
>>strawman document on ietf-tls, then Microsoft does not object.  To
>>facilitate the discussion, you can find the STLP strawman document at:
>>Tom Stephens
>Tom, could you or Win Treese tell us exactly what is going on?  I was
>in LA on March 6 evening meeting, and this (recent unilateral release
>Microsoft of a document of unknown status to an unknown enitity) does
>feel like the intentions I heard expressed at that time.  If Microsoft
>released a unilateral draft, to whom did you release it?  If it was to
>IETF, but is "not an official IETF document," what status does it have?
>Most of all, if the working group is still working on an "actual spec,"
>what purpose is served by this unilateral STLP document?
>These (apparently sub rosa) machinations do not inspire confidence in
>integrity of the original commitments (surprising as they were) to work
>a unified protocol.  The rest of the industry needs to have confidence
>this process.
>--Jim Sanders--
>"Speaking for myself, not necessarily for my employer."
><< Jim Sanders, Staff Scientist, Transaction Security    >>
><< Network Applications Services, Tandem Computers       >>
><< Voice: 408-285-492; E-mail: sanders_james@tandem.com  ))