Re: Comments on STT Spec Implementation Details

• To: perry@piermont.com
• Subject: Re: Comments on STT Spec Implementation Details
• From: RL "Bob" Morgan <morgan@networking.stanford.edu>
• Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 11:18:30 -0700
• Cc: Rick Johnson <rickj@microsoft.com>, www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
• In-Reply-To: Your message <199510051855.OAA05477@frankenstein.piermont.com> of Thu, 05 Oct 1995 14:55:39 -0400

> The belief that companies can make more money by following proprietary
> solutions and imposing them on the world as standards is falling
> away.

I wish I had as much confidence in this as Perry does.  I offer as a current
counter-example the "S/MIME" spec (http://www.rsa.com/rsa/S-MIME/), which is a
proprietary spec developed concurrently and in competition with the
MOSS/Security-Multiparts specs, which are now Proposed Internet Standards.  (See
recent discussions on the pem-dev@tis.com mailing list for technical
comparisons.)  Many companies, including some who have been involved in and
benefited from the IETF process (and including Microsoft, too), have announced
support for S/MIME, presumably meaning they won't be supporting MOSS.  To the
extent that WWW security takes advantage of MIME security, the resolution of
this proprietary-vs-open issue may have impact on the work of this Working Group
as well.

 - RL "Bob" Morgan
   DCCS
   Stanford University

• Re: Comments on STT Spec Implementation Details
• From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>

• Previous: RE: Hacking the LAN
• Next: Re: Comments on STT Spec Implementation Details
• Index(es):
  • Index
  • Thread