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

Re: comments on the latest GSSAPI draft changes

To: "Brian Swander (Exchange)" <briansw@exchange.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: comments on the latest GSSAPI draft changes
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:27:55 -0400
cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:11:31 PDT." <19398D273324D3118A2B0008C7E9A56902751618@SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


>>>>> "Exchange" == Exchange  <Brian> writes:
    Exchange> of course our numbers are protected by vendor ids.  that doesn't mean we
    Exchange> don't care what those numbers are.  we still want interop as

  Vendor IDs *do* mean that *I* don't care what numbers you use. If you have
received a Vendor ID payload that you recognize, you now own the private use
space, and you can assign any number you want.
  
] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

References:

RE: comments on the latest GSSAPI draft changes

From: "Brian Swander (Exchange)" <briansw@exchange.microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: Re: IKE reference implementations
Next by Date: Re: IKE reference implementations
Prev by thread: RE: comments on the latest GSSAPI draft changes
Next by thread: RE: Re[4]: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread