From: Eric Young <eay@mincom.oz.au>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:53:54 +0800
To: Phil Karlton <karlton@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: Edited Edupage, 24 March 1996
In-Reply-To: <3159926C.FF6@netscape.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960328154547.17117D-100000@orb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Phil Karlton wrote:
> Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > We aren't talking about SSL, Mr. Karlton.
> My apologies for misunderstanding what you wrote. It could be that I am
> oversensitive on the issue since SSL has been "accused" of being
> proprietary in many forums.

Just a quick comment on the openness of SSL.  I have been able to 
implement SSL and support routines from internet available documentation.
There is only one part that I have had trouble getting documentation 
for.  This one part is a 'standard' but the only way I can get it is by 
either spending lots of money or by getting other people to send me their 
own online information.
I'm talking about X509/ASN.1.  I still am not sure of the format of the 
ASN.1 BOOLEAN type, and I have only just been able to get hold of the 
actual full specification of X509v3.  The UNIVERSALSTRING type?  Only 
found out about it's existance 3 days ago.

Netscape has not been in anyway an impediment to implementing SSL.
RSA inc and it's software patents are more of an issue.  Mind you, I 
would not have gotten off the ground if it was not for RSA's PKCS 
documents.  As some-one who started implementing SSL as a learning 
exercise with no money to spend, I have learnt to dislike the way some 
the 'standards' are not available (by which I mean available for 
the masses via the internet, ala rfc's).

eric (venting some frustration that build up during the just completed
      'quest for the X509v3 spec')
--
Eric Young                  | Signature removed since it was generating
AARNet: eay@mincom.oz.au    | more followups than the message contents :-)