The reason I think the SSL isn't that bad of an idea is that it is available _now_. You aren't going to have to wait for people to implement the IPSec proposals once they are finalized. I don't think that SSL is proposed as a long-term solution; but an interim one. Someday we will have fully cryptographic IP packets and sniffing will be dead as a dog. This can't happen tomorrow; so let's at least keep, say, my AMEX # safe. Rod ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article) Author: perry@imsi.com at Internet Date: 1/24/95 4:00 AM Richard Huddleston says: > There's a protocol being touted by Netcape Communications Corportation > (formerly Mosaic Communications Corportation) which is supposedly strong > enough to conduct commerce over. I don't want to debate SSL here, but as I see it, its a bad idea. This really belongs at the network layer, where the proposals that the IP Security working group all have been made. (Netscape kind of ignored everyone at IPSec, along with the rest of the IETF, and the rest of the world.) > I'm not a member of the Brainiac Protocol Busters Club, but the protocol > looks pretty good to me. Not to me; I doubt we needed another one of these... But as I said, this really isn't the place to carry out this debate. Perry