[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: editorial on Photuris

To: Charles Watt <watt@sware.com>
Subject: Re: editorial on Photuris
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 16:17:36 -0500
Cc: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Ran Atkinson), ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:12:32 EST." <199511142014.AA02595@interlock.ans.net>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com

Charles Watt writes:
> 	1) PGP is non-standard.  You would face trouble advancing
> 	   Photuris along the standards track referencing a non-IETF
> 	   protocol.

There is a PGP formats draft in progress right now.

> 	2) It is far from clear that PGP is the best, or even a desirable
> 	   approach.

Perhaps, but X.509 is certainly more part of the problem set than the
solution set,and no one seems to be working on anything else right now.

> 	3) PGP by itself is insufficient for solving the problem -- and it
> 	   certainly isn't necessary for solving the problem at this stage 
>  	   of the specification process.

Well, it *does* solve some nice problems for us in the short run.

.pm

References:

Re: editorial on Photuris

From: Charles Watt <watt@sware.com>

Prev by Date: Re: editorial on Photuris
Next by Date: Re: editorial on Photuris
Prev by thread: Re: editorial on Photuris
Next by thread: editorial on Photuris
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread