[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Scott G. Kelly wrote:
> Jan Vilhuber wrote:
> <trimmed...>
> > On Wed, 24 May 2000, Scott G. Kelly wrote:
> > > Actually, I think the entire point of the various user auth proposals
> > > are to create the minimal necessary and sufficient *subset* of the
> > > functionality present in ppp and l2tp in order to enable secure remote
> > > access.
> > >
> > However, experience has shown, that when you trim down and think you can
> > offer the trimmed down version to customers, they usually say: Cool. This is
> > great. Can it also do <foo>? Where foo is usually something that your concept
> > was precisely designed NOT to do...
> >
> > Trimming down, in my opinion, is a bad choice, if you already have a
> > mechanism that does the superset. People invariably will want all features
> > of the superset in the subset (which by definition means you've just
> > reinvented the superset).
> >
>
> Okay, this brings us back to a question I raised last week which remains
> unanswered. We have a requirements document. Most of the functionality
> provided by ppp and l2tp is not listed in that document. Your argument
> implies that the document is deficient in this regard. Please enumerate
> what requirements are missing from that document, as it is very
> important that we reach consensus on requirements before we attempt to
> select a solution.
>
I'm not sure what docuemnt you are talking about, and I certainly wan't
implying anything in particular. I was merely pointing out the deficiencies
of trimming down, and not pointing at any document at all.
Maybe someone from the l2tp group can come up with these requirements.
jan
--
Jan Vilhuber vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose (408) 527-0847
Follow-Ups:
References: