Dave Del Torto wrote:
At 3:15 pm -0800 11/24/97, David Sternlight wrote:
[material removed]
Of course, Security Area folks don't have the depth of knowledge tat
David has been exhibiting on the Net for quite a while (:-).
Your gratuitous slam comes with ill grace from someone who apparently
doesn't understand the meaning of "for all the new standards". We were
talking about PGP's pulling RSA key generation from free PGP 5.0, and
pulling RSA entirely from free PGP 5.5.2, neither of which is a new IETF
standard or even a standard in work.. What is more, they didn't pull it
from pay PGP 5.0 at the same time, so your argument fails doubly.
[snip]
Gentlemen,
Regardless of whether I agree with anything any of you has posted on this
topic, or with the manner, lack of manners, or even the *imagined* lack of
manners (as the case may be) with which it has been said, the fact remains
that this particular thread (playing haruspex over PGP Inc's business plans
and development decisions), does not belong on the IETF's OpenPGP list.
Please pause to re-familiarize yourselves with the Charter (see:
<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/openpgp-charter.html>). This list is
dedicated to the definition, under IETF guidelines, of an *open* PGP
messaging standard, neither designed nor controlled by PGP Inc -- which
company is absent from mention in the Charter (which also, in a fit of
neutrality, lacks any mention of RSADSI or its products). Thus, whether you
like them or abhor them, use them or prefer to ignore them posting your
opinions about PGP Inc's products and/or practices on this particular
working list is conspicuously inappropriate. It may also be counter-
productive to this standards effort (readers: draw your own conclusions).
I believe I can safely assume that the four of you are intelligent enough to
at least agree on one thing: that the Internet badly needs a real-world,
workable standard for interoperable messaging with strong encryption. I also
assume that, as interested/concerned technical participants, it is not your
intention to impede the work of this (or any other) Working Group. If so,
please do us the courtesy of moving this thread to another forum where you
can pursue it at your convenience.
I agree completely with the sentiments of the writer.
Since it was Mr. Sternlight who first saw fit to insert his opinions here
(without regard for netiquette, or first familiarizing himself with the WG's
Charter), perhaps it would be appropriate to move this thread to
<news:alt.fan.david-sternlight>. Those who are so inclined may spelunk
deeply into his opinions there without further involving the members of this
Working Group (some of whom I suspect might still wish to move the OpenPGP
standard forward, unencumbered by irrelevancies such as debates over why PGP
Inc's freeware doesn't contain this cipher or that hash).
It is regrettable that Del Torto spoiled a statement of high principle with an
archly personal slam. Those comments are at least subject to
misinterpretation. I had not been a subscriber to the list, and one such
subscriber e-mailed me several previous posts to the list which I thought in
fairness needed a response, which I made. That response triggered off personal
attacks from certain others with which I have tried not to engage since I,
too, felt them inappropriate.
On reflection I think the e-mailed copies were a provocation and It may be
that the attempt to drag me into the discussion should have been ignored. Be
that as it may, I support Del Torto's sentiments and do not plan further to
pursue any matter which he refers to as "irrelevancies" on this list. I hope
those holding different views from mine on such matters will behave in a
similar fashion.
As for Del Torto's redirect pointer, I do not participate directly in that
group despite its name. In any case a more useful place for further exercise
of righteous indignation at, or ringing defense of the actions of PGP Inc.
might be the bit bucket. For those consumed by this issue whose mailers don't
provide such a redirect option, news:comp.security.pgp.discuss might be a
viable alternative.
David