[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Unsupported DOI attributes and values

To: Black_David@emc.com
Subject: Re: Unsupported DOI attributes and values
From: "Derrell D. Piper" <ddp@network-alchemy.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:58:49 -0700
cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:39:34 EDT." <729D927EF825D311961000E029101CCC258CB1@mxclsa>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

>The suggestion was made that any proposal that includes the new attribute be
>accompanied by one that does not, so that an implementation that does not
>support the new attribute can select a proposal that does not contain it.

A reasonable suggestion.  If there are no objections, I'll ammend Section
4.5.3 to say that instead of aborting the entire negotiation, the requirement
is that proposals containing unknown attributes MUST not be accepted.

In practice, unknown attributes haven't been a problem at the bake-offs.

Derrell

References:

Unsupported DOI attributes and values

From: Black_David@emc.com

Prev by Date: Unsupported DOI attributes and values
Next by Date: Re: rfc2393bis
Prev by thread: Unsupported DOI attributes and values
Next by thread: Unsupported DOI attributes and values
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread