Re: MOSS vs. S/MIME vs. PGP/MIME Matrix

[pkqjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Rik:

Some more matrix questions if you don't mind:

Row 2: "Easily integrated into products in a user transparent manner," for
which there is a "no" fo pre 3.0 version for PGP/MIME. Does this mean the
API for including PGP/MIME in products stinks (is not so easy)? I think
the "user transparent manner" phrase is throwing me off.

13: "Coexistence with others for reception of MIME multipart/signed data"
Could you explain this one? Does it mean it can accept other MIME based
e-mail solutions, such as a PGP/MIME implementation accept a MOSS message?
If so, what would it be able to do with it, just pass it along?

15. "Signed message body readable by MIME readers." Explain... How different
from 13?
18 "Signature separate from signed document." Does this mean that you can
sign a hash as opposed to signing the whole document?

26. "Adequate Security for EDI" Does this mean it supports all the recommendations
such as algorithms to use, key lengths, etc, in your RFC draft?

28 "Solid MIME integration" If they're all proposals which integrate MIME
into the security protocol, what is this telling us additional; i.e.,
why wouln't they be solidly integrated with MIME. I understand MSP is 
basically intended for X.400. Is this the reason for the row?

33. "Common algorithms with AUTACK" Does this mean that the protocol
supports the same algorithms that AUTACK supports. If doing encryption
outside the EDI interchange, why do we care?

Lastly, you have a column for DMS. While I initially had no clue what that
was, I have learned that it is a program by the military (Defense Messaging
System) for secure e-mail. The "protocol" within DMS, is MSP. As the 
DMS gov't program is not a protocol, don't you think at column should be
MSP?

I apologize again for any dumb questions. It's late (no excuse), and
all these protocols have been driving me crazy of late?

Jeannine Lonski
pkqjs@ctt.bellcore.com
not