Decision: Encryption Method/Product

[drummond@xxxxxxxxxx (Rik Drummond)]

I believe we have two choices for our final recommendation on the security
product/standard:
      1) recommend one product/standard as the primary (not only)-- the one
we help CommerceNet
          interoperability test, or

      2) decide that we can not make a choice and state it and make sure
the translators each have a new
          trading partner field added for  "encryption methods used" such
as: MOSS, S/MIME, X.12.58,
         PGP/MIME, none, or other.

      3) ((Others?))

QUESTION: From a developer's or implementor's point-of-view, does either
choice make it significantly easier to get interoperability between EDI
products NOW?

To make that decision we need to compare the PGP/MIME and S/MIME stuff. The
working comparison matrix is almost ready. We are attempting to get it into
HTML format and post it on a Web site so that you may review and comment on
the information. Hopefully, it will clearly tilt the scales towards #1 or
#2 above.

Your thoughts, please.

Later,  Rik

P.S. Matrix Info. Source:  Internet Mail Consortium Workshop data, Kent
Landfield, Chuch Shih, David Darnell,
        David Chia,  Rik Drummond, and may other sources.





>At 1:56 PM -0700 5/16/96, Rik Drummond wrote:
>>The point I was attempting to make was the following:  "S/MIME seems to be
>>a favorite in Corporate USA because of its Business focused history"...
>>--- the logo.
>>
>>PGP is not even known in most Corporate America and if it is....the current
>>version (very un-user friendly) does not endear it to the normal user.
>>
>>I would venture to say that "Corporate America Email users" would prefer
>>S/MIME/RSA over PGP because of the business flavor.
>
>Folks,
>
>	What follows is not a statement of preference for a particular
>technology, nor is it a criticism of their marketing efforts.  The problem
>I am raising in this note is not with the folks trying to sell some
>technologies.  It is with ourselves.  This note is an attempt to rein in a
>process which, I think, is going down a path that uses a fundamentally
>wrong style of analysis:
>
>	The debate is based on mindshare and attitude.  That can be an
>entirely valid and even essential component to an analysis of market
>dominance when making a technology or product choice.
>
>	But it is only valid when there is a real market with real sales
>and use.  The problem with the current discussion is that it is mindshare
>based on vapor.  Neither of the cited technologies is shipping.  Neither
>has an installed base.  ALL they have is mindshare.
>
>	No, I'm sorry.  Demonstrations and interoperability testing are not
>enough.  Shipping code is a start.  Deployed product and regular use is
>vastly preferred.  Anything less is just talk.
>
>	This industry has far too much experience with early mindshare,
>fancy demonstrations, and late failure for us to have an algorithmic leg to
>stand on.  We simply must stop declaring victory that is based strictly on
>marketing and not on sales and (more importantly) use.
>
>	For how long did we hear each of the OSI transport declared as THE
>choice of corporate America?  How about Teletext? How about X.400?  How
>about...  (Go ahead.  I'll bet you have your own favorite example.)
>
>d/
>
>--------------------
>Dave Crocker                                            +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting                             fax: +1 408 249 6205
>675 Spruce Dr.                                 dcrocker@brandenburg.com
>Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA                       http://www.brandenburg.com
>
>Internet Mail Consortium               http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org

------------------------------------------------------
|         Rik Drummond - The Drummond Group         |
|   5008 Bentwood Ct., Ft. Worth, TX 76132 USA  |
|        Voice: 817 294 7339    Fax: 817 294 7950     |
------------------------------------------------------