[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
In message <01BC9752.5BD1CD80@BIGHUGE>, Rob Adams writes:
> I agree with Roy completely here. We've had a directive from the chair to
> obsolete 1829.
Since when? I missed that directive. Where is it written down? Or did it
perhaps occur on a mailing list not affilated with the IPsec WG?
> From the same July 03 mail from Bob that Simpson quotes:
>
> >Thus as an educated consumer, I reject all concerns about backwards
> >compatibility. As co-chair of a protocol group, I seriously question the
> >value of backwards compatibility in this case, other than a foot-note and
> >some accommodation.
>
> "Some accommodation" does not indicate mandatory implementation of obsolete
> features even in the manually configured case.
This message was not part of the WG discussion. Bob was not acting in any
capacity as WG chair. I reject your analysis.
There is no reason *not* to support backwards compatablity, given an easy
option to do so. Compatability is *always* a good thing.
Frankly, I don't understand why this is even an issue, except for the fact
that Bill Simpson raised it.
--
Harald
References: