Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape

["Kipp E.B. Hickman" <kipp@warp.mcom.com>]

On Dec 12,  6:26pm, Doug Barnes wrote:
> Subject: Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape
> > Doug B.:
> > >
> > > Ah, it doesn't work with existing proxies, so we have to pay
> > > you. Whether it is your true motivation true or not, this
> > > apparent attempt to create a market for proprietary goods by
> > > disrupting standards is at the core of the bad odor that your
> > > company is giving off these days.
> >
>
> Kipp:
> > You are right. It doesn't work with existing proxy's. But existing proxy's
> > can't do secure data transfers, so what's your point?
>
> Rather than saying, "oh, our new 'standard' won't work with
> existing technology, so buy ours", you might say, "we will be
> happy to work with the developers of existing proxies to make
> necessary changes to be compatible with our product. Alternatively,
> you could buy our proxy software which also has some additional
> benefits of foo, bar and baz."  (Also, not every solution to
> every Web security threat involves breaking existing proxies.)

If this hadn't been made clear already, then hopefully this will:

	Our intention is to support any development effort attempting
	to implement an SSL conformant implementation. We will work with
	you to repair the spec as needed to eliminate any errors or
	ommisions, and help you test your implementation to ensure that
	it interoperates with ours.

> But no, you blindly forge ahead, so full of yourself that you
> blissfully reinvent wheels (Perry), miss the real concerns of
> the users (Me), disrupt the marketplace (Amanda), and generally
> fail to think things through very well (Adam) or consider the work
> of others (Perry).
>
> Your three biggest problems are: arrogance, arrogance and
> arrogance.

I'm really sorry that this is how we are currently being perceived. It was
never our intention. Rather, we wished to do those things that we believed were
necessary to allow commerce on the Internet. We are a small company with
limited resources and limited time to market. After talking with prospective
customers we came up with a plan and implemented it. We are sorry if somebody's
toes were stepped on in the process.

> Kipp:
> > In any case, my personal opinion is that NCOM is being attacked with a
> > catch-22. If we had kept the protocol proprietary, then we would have been
> > shot. We went public with it and are getting shot. If we had waited the 2.5
> > years to develop it, as a few here would seem to be advocating, then the
market
> > would shoot us.
> >
>
> If you were willing to _read_ and to go to an occasional
> meeting, or even send out a post, "Hey, I'm about to sink
> the resources of this company into coming up with yet another
> transport layer security protocol, anyone got one already?",
> then you might get less hostility, or you might not get used
> for target practice so often.

We believe that we were up to date with respect to what was going on in the
internet community at large when the company was started. Somebody should feel
relieved that approach matches where the internet seems to be heading -
security at the transport levels.

Our imperfect examination of the work in progress yielded nothing that would
meet our needs and our timelyness. I'm sorry if our selection criteria don't
meet yours.

In any case, the cat is out of the bag, and we are where we are.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kipp E.B. Hickman          Netscape Communications Corp.
kipp@mcom.com              http://www.mcom.com/people/kipp/index.html