[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Michael,
> This is all well and good, and is fine.
> Some people want to go beyond the MUSTs (and/or have customers who want
>them to), and this is good. The architecture is explicitely extendible.
> The problem is that some people, having read the MUSTs, assume that this
>is all that is possible, and therefore want to interpret two unequal
>proposals for non-MUSTs processing as being the same as something that is a
>MUST.
Fair point. But, as we progress beyond thye "musts" we need to proceed
deliberately, and not trash the architecture in a rush to accommoadte more
sophisiticated combinations. After all, we settled on a limited set of
MUST support combinations so that we could proceed with the standards. So
far I have yet to see a client implementation that supports the nesting
that is already required, and now we seem to be pushing to work out the
kinks to support for more complex comibnations.
Steve
References: