From: “Yee, Peter” <yee@spyrus.com>
To: brad@his.com (Brad Knowles)
Message Hash: 31711b9304eeceb89dbfd612d666e7901bf4ea15ac60f230892f6a13e2009ec3
Message ID: <9601238250.AA825095039@spysouth.spyrus.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-24 07:07:47 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:07:47 +0800
From: "Yee, Peter" <yee@spyrus.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:07:47 +0800
To: brad@his.com (Brad Knowles)
Subject: Re: [No subject]
Message-ID: <9601238250.AA825095039@spysouth.spyrus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>> Earlier, I mentioned that two and a half protocols survived the
>> day. The remaining one is MSP. It's actually not a bad protocol. It
>> has two features that none of the others have: the ability to label
>> classified messages, and a cryptographically strong signed receipt.
>> Both of these functions are highly important for government users. It
>> looks like government suppliers are going to go ahead and implement
>> it, and the government is going to use it.
>Although these benefits are present in the current MSP, I
>don't see anything inherent in MSP that makes it necessarily superior in these
>areas. If you were doing normal MIME-type receipts (whatever that means, since
>I think there are three different drafts under way currently), and you simply
>added the ability to cryptographically sign a timestamp in the "proper" MIME
>receipt type, then MSP would lose this advantage.
FIF. I guess this could be said about any of the protocols. With enough
changes they all have the same feature set. :-) MSP just has it now and it
works.
>I think labeling could potentially be done by follow-on
>versions of other packages as well, since I think we all agree that generic
>labeling which can be used both for standard gov't-style classification levels
>and compartments, as well as for business-style sensitivity labeling. In fact,
>I'd almost be inclined to say that it would likely be as easy (or easier) to
>create a new general-purpose labeling system for use with any of the
>competitors than it would be to modify MSP to support business-style labels in
>addition to the gov't-style labels I'm sure it has today (maybe it already has
>labels, but I don't think that this is that tough of a problem to solve in any
>event).
Well, read MSP first before assuming. And of course, see above comment.
-Peter
Return to February 1996
Return to ““Yee, Peter” <yee@spyrus.com>”
1996-02-24 (Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:07:47 +0800) - Re: [No subject] - “Yee, Peter” <yee@spyrus.com>