Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:12:13 +0200 (MET DST)

A small reminder. 

----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:14:46 +0100 (MET)
From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

Hi,

after more than 2 weeks of no response, it would be nice from the editor
of 3161bis to indicate a procedure to get whatever kind of answer to this
question as a possible clarification into the 3161bis document.

Peter

> From: "Pere Fiol" <[email-masked]>
> To: "ietf" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol 
> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:47:55 +0100
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've developed a TSA but I have a doubt in TCP protocol: if a client
> sends a request to TSA with invalid TCP message (for example with a flag
> different of '00'H, with wrong number of bytes in length,...) What must
> do a TSA in this situations?? RFC3161 mustn't talk something about it??
> 
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Pere Fiol

----- End Included Message -----

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:10:03 +1200

Stephen Kent <[email-masked]> writes:

>I think we need to define one transport protocol as a default, and make it a
>MUST implement, so that all clients and all servers are capable of
>communicating, at least in principle.

Already done: HTTP, same as for CMP.  

Next!

Peter.

---

From: Carlisle Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:51:33 -0400

Wow!  I'm sure that the authors of 3161 must feel a tremendous
responsibility for having unknowingly precipitated this impending
catastrophe...

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 12:49 PM
To: Ricardo Barroso; Gianluca Ramunno
Cc: Stephen Kent; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Lynn St.Amour
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

I see the ascension of 3161 as one of the saddest things that can happen
since it will permanently impugn PKIX and in fact may be the key item
necessary to force the deconstruction of the IETF as we know it today.

---

From: Carlisle Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:03:09 -0400

Todd,

I've deleted all the text that has too many errors -- or is just plain too
"off-the-wall" -- to be worth a response.

See my one response below, prefixed by [Carlisle].

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:22 PM
To: Stephen Kent
Cc: Ricardo Barroso; Gianluca Ramunno; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Lynn St.Amour; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

> Or maybe in this case the
> authors of RFC3161 and their company's should be paying for having a 
> legal opinion rendered since they and you claim that the use of their 
> technology does not violate these larger-picture patents - Eh Carlisle - 
> how about it? Does Sharon have budget for this?

[Carlisle]  You need to check your facts before throwing accusations around.
The actual truth is that I have never made any such claim, period.  Most
people know better than to publicly volunteer patent opinions one way or
another with respect to their employer's technologies, and I count myself in
that group.  As for Sharon, she is a colleague of mine and has no control
whatsoever over Entrust budget.  I can't help it if you like to dream things
up and then believe them, but you need to be careful when you begin to spout
them in public fora.  I'll thank you to retract your statement.  Now.

> just my 2 cents

[Carlisle]  That's more than I would pay for it.

Carlisle.