[1486] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Netscape SSL Patent
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hoffman, Mort)
Mon Sep 15 14:21:05 1997
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:12:12 -0400
From: "Hoffman, Mort" <Mort.Hoffman@GSC.GTE.Com>
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>, cryptography@c2.net
SP4 was the same protocol as SP3, with variations on the set of options
in order to support layer 4, rather than layer 3. In fact, they were
designed so that with the correct set of options, SP3 and SP4 could
interoperate. They were two views of what the same protocol should be
from different groups, and the compromise was to design a compatible
core protocol, with different options that oriented the protocol to the
layer below (SP3) with gateway support, or the layer above (SP4) with
support for transport functions.
> ----------
> From: Bill Stewart[SMTP:stewarts@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 1997 4:08 AM
> To: cryptography@c2.net
> Subject: Re: Netscape SSL Patent
>
> The claims sound somewhat like SP4, with the obvious extension
> to the TCP/IP 5ish-layer world rather than the OSI 7ish-layer one
> (using sockets to reach application layer rather than
> session/presentation/appl.)
>
> SP3 was the above-layer-3 protocol, and I think SP4 was above-layer-4
> rather than bottom-of-layer-4, but it's been a while.
>
> At 10:11 AM 9/12/97 -0400, David Jablon wrote:
> >It might only take one good example of earlier work that
> >used any kind of encrypted data to control the
> >transport layer to invalidate this.
> >A big weakness here is that there are no narrower claims.
> >The "encrypted information" is nowhere limited to
> >being digitally signed, so purely symmetric techniques
> >are relevant.
>
>
>
