Re: Applications Working Group

Gary Winiger <> Sat, 11 July 1992 01:21 UTC

Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10903; 10 Jul 92 21:21 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09959; 10 Jul 92 21:23 EDT
Received: by (5.61+++/WDL-3.12) id AA23711; Fri, 10 Jul 92 17:25:35 -0700
Received: from Sun.COM by (5.61+++/WDL-3.12) id AA23705; Fri, 10 Jul 92 17:25:32 -0700
Received: from EBay.Sun.COM (female.EBay.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21070; Fri, 10 Jul 92 17:22:33 PDT
Received: from marduk.Sun.COM by EBay.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02461; Fri, 10 Jul 92 17:22:31 PDT
Received: by marduk.Sun.COM (SunOS CMW 1.0/SMI-4.1) id AA02623; Fri, 10 Jul 92 17:22:40 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 17:22:40 PDT
From: Gary Winiger <>
Message-Id: <9207110022.AA02623@marduk.Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Applications Working Group
X-Sender-Information-Label: CONFIDENTIAL ALL EYES

>>> Submissions to the tsig list:
>>> Additions/deletions/questions:
>>> Archive Server:

>July meeting, I would like your feedback on this proposed group. The scope of
>the working group could include API issues for secure mail, trusted databases,
>secure ftp and telnet, and X applications.  

	I'm not sure I understand the scope.  Is this a suggestion that the
API be applicable to someone who may wish to code applications such as
secure mail, TDB, ....  Or is there something that I don't see here about 
what your proposing about an API (Application Programming Interface)?  

	Any how, isn't POSIX.6 just such an API?  Won't the platform / OS
companies be compelled to provide .6?  I realize that .6 is not done quite
yet, but wonder if proposing an alternative API to .6 is a wise use of TSIG

	I'm sorry I won't be able to make the July meeting.  I hope to be
able to start contributing to TSIG again later this year.  In any case,
I'm interested in following the activities of such a group.