[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows 2000 and Cicsco router interoperability
Reply sent to ipsra list, since that is where this discussion belongs.
Jan Vilhuber wrote:
>
> 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
References: