Re: Armour

[David Formosa <dformosa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Ian Grigg wrote:

> Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:

[...]

> > 2.  Installed base compatibility
> > 
> >     It has been observed a number of times that that is already lost for
> > other reasons, so use of MIME rather than Armour does not create a new
> > problem.

[...]

> 1.  Is this WG happy to take as a given, or a working assumption, or a
> fundamental position (pick your own term), that the compatibility with
> the installed base is lost?

I am not happy with this assumpion/position  installed base compasty is
only realy lost for a subset of users.  Thouse living outside the range of
the patents or willing to bye a licence can recover backwards capasity.
That being said the loss of armour would create a new problem for the
unemcombered population.

> 2.  If compatibility with the installed base (as inferred above) is
> *not* lost, does the proposal that MIME should "replace" Armour
> (ignoring how&what) still have any merit?

Advanigers for Mime

  Preexisting code liberys.
  Neetness of standerisation

Advanigers for Armour

  Interoperbility with existing versons of PGP
  Interoperbility with existing scrips.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett.  I do not reply to munged addresses.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNHt0iKQK0ynCmdStAQHHgAQAtrvh79unK1zlEM9r9eHC84+FCfCcpNZQ
YkvxAhr/t6O2uqQCHTGOQ1awDAjujfXkTWhj5C6y112XA8Ne6c7qgAc4fcUo0/04
rjHhEj678eKg9DqbsTROGEu6TO6fYHX/KhLfLRZWopqJqmhZIpL+4mp1IINlskl/
K3UP8AAs5nI=
=o7Nj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----