Re: BofA+Netscape

At 7:50 AM 12/12/94, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Marc Andreessen says:
>> I fully expect we'll be supporting other security standards and
>> approaches as they emerge, and we certainly welcome realistic suggestions 
>> on what we should do, when, and how.
>
>I told you in Email, Mr. Andreessen, that new transport level security
>protocols are useless now that IPSP has come near to standardization
>and now that prototype implementations are nearly available.

Great, IPSP looks fantastic and we look forward to supporting it
as it moves through and beyond the "near" phase.

> Many
>people at IETF in other groups expressed far less interest in
>proceeding with new security protocols now that there will be a
>network layer security protocol. However, you did not appear to be
>remotely interested. I suppose that you considered the comment I made
>"unrealistic".

No, I think IPSP is a great idea and I don't thin there's any question we'll
be supporting it.

>unfortunately, the product is
>just too pretty looking.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Marc


--
Marc Andreessen
Netscape Communications Corporation
Mountain View, CA
marca@mcom.com

Marc Andreessen says:
> >I told you in Email, Mr. Andreessen, that new transport level security
> >protocols are useless now that IPSP has come near to standardization
> >and now that prototype implementations are nearly available.
> 
> Great, IPSP looks fantastic and we look forward to supporting it
> as it moves through and beyond the "near" phase.

Given that you haven't read any IPSP documents, I can only interpret
your comments as sarcasm. If they aren't sarcasm, they represent more
of the same "why bother to do any research" attitude that got you into
trouble in the first place.

When I wrote you mail explaining that solutions on top of the
transport layer were becoming rapidly obsolete, you dismissed me off
hand, not even having bothered to check the literature on the
subject.

I don't mind an informed discussion in which individuals like yourself
say things like "I don't like the encapsulation formats proposed in
IPSP because they don't give me enough flexibility to do X" or things
of that nature. I wouldn't mind a "we examined IPSP and found it
lacking". However, you didn't even bother to look at anything I
mentioned. You dismissed it without knowing what it was. Your fellows
seem so ignorant on the subject that they think that network layer
security requires changes to the routing infrastructure (it does not
-- it can even be implemented at user level using BPF or NIT, though I
don't recommend that.)

The thing I find truly outrageous about the Netscape crowd is that you
apparently did some navel staring, came up with an idea internet
security, and proceeded to go off and do it. Not for one moment did
you consider the possibility that others might have already done
something worth looking at, or that it might even be already developed
and on its way to standardization.


Perry

> Marc Andreessen says:
> > Great, IPSP looks fantastic and we look forward to supporting it
> > as it moves through and beyond the "near" phase.

Perry E. Metzger writes
> Given that you haven't read any IPSP documents, I can only interpret
> your comments as sarcasm. If they aren't sarcasm, they represent more
> of the same "why bother to do any research" attitude that got you into
> trouble in the first place.

Perry, they are not in trouble.  They are the number one supplier
of the internet killer app.

The plug for crypto that they have placed in Netscape 0.96 is
the number one force bringing crypto awareness to the masses.

He said that Netscape would look at IPSP when it was beyond
the "near" phase.

The correct response is "Gee that is great.  Here are some
working demo systems, and some slabs of documentation."

Your salesmanship leaves something to be desired.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com

jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald) writes:
[regarding Netscape and IETF work...]
> 
> Perry, they are not in trouble.  They are the number one supplier
> of the internet killer app.

They are the supplier of the current app-du-jour.  What things look lie in
five months is another issue completely.

> The plug for crypto that they have placed in Netscape 0.96 is
> the number one force bringing crypto awareness to the masses.

Increasing use of PGP is the number one force bringing crypto awareness to
the masses, Netscape is just bringing bad crypto to the masses.

> He said that Netscape would look at IPSP when it was beyond
> the "near" phase. [...]  The correct response is "Gee that is great.
> Here are some working demo systems, and some slabs of documentation."

No, the correct response is to stop idotic measures before the build up
enough inertia behind them to make it difficult to prevent mistakes from
being made.  It is interesting that the creators of Netscape quite
frequently harp on "it is us against the goliath of Microsoft, so we
deserve the support of the net" and then they go out and do exactly the
sort of thing that makes Microsoft so unpopular; they take advantage of
thier market position to force bad technology on others.

jim