


docno="lists-034-10073419"
name="Jim Sanders"
email="sanders_james@tandem.com "
sent="Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:53:16 -0700"
subject="Re: Status (if any) of STLP?"
To: tomste@microsoft.com
Cc: ietf-tls@w3.org, tls-draft@w3.org



     
   
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:

>http://pct.microsoft.com/stlp.
>>
>Tom Stephens
>---------------------------------
Tom, could you or Win Treese tell us exactly what is going on?  I was there
in LA on March 6 evening meeting, and this (recent unilateral release by
Microsoft of a document of unknown status to an unknown enitity) does not
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 the
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 the
integrity of the original commitments (surprising as they were) to work out
a unified protocol.  The rest of the industry needs to have confidence in
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  ))



