At 03:31 PM 10/27/95 EDT, Bancroft Scott wrote:
Howdy,
Below I explain why the assertions a couple weeks ago by Peter
Williams
Im amazed that anyone spends longer than 10 seconds reading my mails
to pem-dev, (and ssl-talk). This is how long I spend reading Internet mail
on these highly politicised, undirected, non-work lists, on the whole.
I must say though that I did read both your and Bob Jueneman's pem-dev
messages on SEPP/STT word by word. Its so rare to see messages which
assert a purely technical position strongly, without a manipulative
or insulting intent.
Verisign is one hundred percent ambiguous on the merits of SEPP
over STT. That a technical debate is occuring is without doubt a
good thing, as a technology will surely emerge which all can
implement. Given an accepted reference implementation, a usable solution
will be available to real people.
The message I received from your mails was, however, that VISA/Microsoft
STT design team should adopt ASN.1 and/or one of the OSI encoding
mechanisms. Is this true statement of your position on STT spec?
Or is it sufficient that they *fix* the issues you, and others from the
ongoing public review, mention?
Im sorry if I led you to believe STT was a stable spec. I read it for
the first time, only 48hrs prior to reading the mail which you quote,
and have no special knowledge of its design processes. I only wish to
understand it. I wish there were a Bob Jueneman at Microsoft, on
this list.