[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Regarding Bill's draft
> From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
> My interpretation of the wg requirements is that it is not
> enough that it be possible for the protocol to support a required
> functionality, but that a compliant implementation must support it.
> ....
Ted, I agree with everything you eloquently said (so I won't repeat the
rest), as you make no mention of any particular requirement.
For the remainder of this message, I will make the assumption that you
are referring to Sensitivity Labels, as you did in an earlier message.
If you are interested, just tell me about the details, and I'll whip up
a little separate draft in a few minutes. So far, nobody has detailed
enough description about how such an option might be formatted and
negotiated. It was removed to the extensions draft for lack of
interest.
Sensitivity Labels are clearly not required (by the working group, or any
proposed standard, or otherwise). Complaint implementations of IP
Security are not required to support them.
I will go one step further. In a separate message, I will call for the
removal of mention of Sensitivity Labels in the "architecture" document
as we go to Draft Standard. For lack of 2 implementations.
Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2