1997-10-11 - Re: PGP CAKware & IETF controlled Open-PGP standard

Header Data

From: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
To: “William Allen Simpson” <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Message Hash: e5c36c2e6493137eb664b0a208ab736bc87251224913df044bdd243c70937c0c
Message ID: <199710110557.BAA22975@users.invweb.net>
Reply To: <6661.wsimpson@greendragon.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-11 06:07:07 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:07:07 +0800

Raw message

From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:07:07 +0800
To: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Subject: Re: PGP CAKware & IETF controlled Open-PGP standard
In-Reply-To: <6661.wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Message-ID: <199710110557.BAA22975@users.invweb.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <6661.wsimpson@greendragon.com>, on 10/10/97 
   at 10, "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com> said:

>I'm getting a bit tired of the rants on this topic to the Open-PGP list. 
>Yes, there are problems, but the whole purpose of IETF review is to find
>solutions to problems.

I agree, I think the political debates can be better handled on the CP
list rather than here. In that light I have created a PGP 5.5 digest that
covers the various threads on this topic from the CP list, the open PGP
list and the PGP Users lists (for the neswgroups you are on your own). I
will also provide a daily digest as long as these threads continue
(cut-off time 5pm central time zone). Anyone wishing to receive a copy let
me know (digest, daily, or both).

>The PGP staff have some ideas on how business message recovery can be
>done.  It seems there is a business need.  It seems that they have
>thought about it, and made some effort toward implementation.

>What annoys me is that the PGP formats are now supposed to be "open", yet
>no proposed formats for this new "feature" have been documented for our
>review, and other folks' suggestions for a better K-of-N mechanism have
>been ignored.

>We don't even have the current formats.  When will the PGP 5.0
>internet-draft be ready for review?

>There is already a PGP 5.0 separation between signing and
>communication keys; why not have separate message storage keys?

>Why not have a K-of-N system for BMR?

>Why have a communication enforcement filter, when the only usage is
>supposed to be for recovering archival storage?

>Let us decide _what_ the goals are, _how_ to solve the problems, and
>_then_ decide the protocol details and formats to match the solution.

An excellent suggestion. Perhaps you could detail your ideals on these
areas so we can work on them.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBND8W+o9Co1n+aLhhAQEW2wP/Ya18Xh44vRqsy/5uhPLeprw8C9z+MgWE
MOdoRrKq8BvkCA9qoCEpm6bmFajR18IcvkEE1rurEV69yehpi0/YfYOQ4adntiEd
xTIQ8OLpQ6DMion7FauBb9Y1/XeKef/jOqddlM4qmgUswpkzMA7RMdaHoL7yrLI+
jGjJnD6qmKk=
=KxW9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






Thread