[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: Comments on the new Xauth draft
Stephane Beaulieu wrote:
> > As we understood from the thread held in ipsra, there was a
> > trend for making xauth its own exchange (separating it from
> > cfg). This draft does not reflect that understanding, furthermore
> > this draft seams to force xauth on cfg.
>
> Yes, this was one of the proposals (proposal#2) that Joern had suggested in
> his post with subject named "XAUTH is broken", posted on Jul 22 1999. In
> the same thread, I had mentioned that I was in favor of this. However, I
> received many private emails from implementors who felt that Joern's
> proposal#1 from that same email was a better solution (including one email
> posted to the list by Tero). To that effect, I sent out another post named
> "the next rev of XAUTH" on August 3, 1999, in which I solicited input from
> the list on which of the two proposals we should proceed with. Sadly, I
> received no emails on the list itself. However, I did receive 3 private
> emails supporting Joern's first proposal (as well as Tero's earlier posting
> to the list).
This has been discussed in multiple threads, and I also thought there
was general consensus for splitting xauth and isakmp-cfg. The only
relationship between the two is that they may be applied to remote
access clients, and I don't think this justifies the take-all leave-all
option that binding the two presents.
Scott
References: