[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Phase 1 Re-keying Implementation Identification
It seems to me you're suggesting I'm objecting to the use of vendor ID
as a feature indicator for reasons of purism. That's not correct.
The bigger issue is that it's not going to work.
Optional features are a set, and you can't use a boolean or
enumeration to describe them. You need an encoding that can represent
the subset each side implements (or wants to use). A bitmap will do
that, but a vendor ID cannot.
Let's step away from the temptation to throw together a quick and
dirty hack that won't solve the problem. The argument of "cleaner and
more pragmatic" doesn't fly.
This sort of requirement has been handled in dozens of protocols for
several decades now, it can't be hard or time consuming to nail down
the right way to do it this time. With a bit of care and a bit of
luck, it can be done in a way that doesn't cause nasty disruption to
existing implementations.
paul
Follow-Ups:
References: