Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > PGP has not met the original goal of becoming ubiquitous so replacing > PGP seems to me to be a very worthwhile goal. Replacing STARTTLS with > something that has message scope but is not end to end does not seem > like a good proposition.
I reluctantly agree that maintaining any kind of backwards compatibility with
PGP or S/MIME SHOULD NOT be a requirement.
(If it happens that I can leverage, through new code/protocol, my existing
web of trust, that could be a MAY)
PGP did not take off because it was too decentralized and therefore very
enterprise
hostile, and so it failed to get past early adopters.
S/MIME did not take off because it was too centralized and therefore early
adopter hostile.
Both then ran up against webmail systems, e.g: hotmail/gmail/etc. in the
early 2000s, when having had the RSA patent run out, a renewed push could
have occured. That problem will affect any new solution as well.
I look forward to reviewing drafts, and running beta code.
Who is going to make money on this system?
What's the market incentive to deploy?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-
pgpAyONKJG4cS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
