From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:49:44 +0800
To: rodney@sabletech.com
Subject: Re: r.e. OpenPGP document status
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971011053745.00727b78@pop.pn.com>
Message-ID: <199710111234.NAA02880@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com> writes:
> The message formats draft(s) are being worked on now.  We've only
> had official WG status for something like two weeks.  A little
> patience is in order, I think.

PGP Inc is the group being impatient.  They have been rushing ahead
implementing things behind closed doors which some of us are arguing
should be made non-conforming (WILL NOTs) in the standard.

If PGP doesn't backoff a bit _they'll_ have non-conforming
implementations, and will have to change them.  The danger is that in
a Netscape-like manner, they will use their implementation and
deployment as arguments to justfiy their design decisions rather than
being involved in open design decision justifications as part of the
standardisation process.

This is not how the IETF standardisation process is supposed to work.
Trial implementation of proposals is fine, closed door design and
sudden deployment and mass sale by the market dominator to pre-empt
standardisation I think is not.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`