Re: A brief comparison of email encryption protocols

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Previous message: Brad Knowles: "Re: V1 vs. V3 certificate usage"
• Maybe in reply to: Raph Levien: "A brief comparison of email encryption protocols"

At 11:29 PM 2/20/96, Ned Freed wrote:

>                                If someone wants to write a document describing
> the application of various security nestings and their implications, I have no
> problem with that. But not in the protocol itself.

    So long as the standard explicitly referenced that external
document describing why you might want to do certain things in a
certain order, I would have no problem with that.  But for a
standard to talk exclusively about things like seperable signing
and encrypting without discussing (somehow) the various
interactions, would be a mistake from an
implementation/interoperability standpoint (IMHO).

--
Brad Knowles,                                       MIME: brad@his.com
    comp.mail.sendmail FAQ Maintainer      <http://www.his.com/~brad/>

The comp.mail.sendmail FAQ is at
<http://www.his.com/~brad/sendmail/>

• Previous message: Brad Knowles: "Re: V1 vs. V3 certificate usage"
• Maybe in reply to: Raph Levien: "A brief comparison of email encryption protocols"