|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 11:18:30 -0700 From: RL "Bob" Morgan <morgan@networking.stanford.edu> To: perry@piermont.com Cc: Rick Johnson <rickj@microsoft.com>, www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu In-Reply-To: Your message <199510051855.OAA05477@frankenstein.piermont.com> of Thu, 05 Oct 1995 14:55:39 -0400 Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu > The belief that companies can make more money by following proprietary > solutions and imposing them on the world as standards is falling > away. I wish I had as much confidence in this as Perry does. I offer as a current counter-example the "S/MIME" spec (http://www.rsa.com/rsa/S-MIME/), which is a proprietary spec developed concurrently and in competition with the MOSS/Security-Multiparts specs, which are now Proposed Internet Standards. (See recent discussions on the pem-dev@tis.com mailing list for technical comparisons.) Many companies, including some who have been involved in and benefited from the IETF process (and including Microsoft, too), have announced support for S/MIME, presumably meaning they won't be supporting MOSS. To the extent that WWW security takes advantage of MIME security, the resolution of this proprietary-vs-open issue may have impact on the work of this Working Group as well. - RL "Bob" Morgan DCCS Stanford University
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |