Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!cae780!amdcad!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!samlb
From: samlb@well.UUCP (Samuel B. Bassett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: OSI-model software
Message-ID: <3370@well.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Jun-87 19:52:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.3370
Posted: Sat Jun 20 19:52:43 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jun-87 06:08:39 EDT
References: <223@diab.UUCP> <233@idacrd.UUCP> <526@alliant.UUCP> <1214@botter.cs.vu.nl> <664@faline.bellcore.com>
Reply-To: samlb@well.UUCP (Samuel B. Bassett)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 22
Xref: mnetor comp.dcom.lans:565 comp.protocols.misc:87


	Harrumpf!

	The process of achieving _reliable_ communication over a network is
difficult enough.  _Secure_ communication is a whole order of magnitude
more work, and should be left to the spooks -- when they _really_ need it,
they will provide it on their own lines, and in their own formats.

	As I understand it, the purpose of the various layers should be to
insure that a proper package is wrapped around the "data" that each layer
receives from the next 'higher' layer, so that the (otherwise unexamined)
contents of the data get where they are expected to go, and can be interpreted
correctly when they get there.  The contents of the data at each stage can
be 'plaintext' or 'cryptext' -- the protocol handler should not care one way
or the other.

	Let's not complexify the situation out beyond the state of the art!
-- 
Sam'l Bassett, Semantic Engineer -- My words & ideas are for sale!
34 Oakland Ave., San Anselmo  CA  94960;  (415) 454-7282
UUCP:  {...known world...}!hplabs OR ptsfa OR lll-crg!well!samlb;
Compuserve:  71735,1776;  WU Easylink ESL 6284-3034;  MCI SBassett