[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: exchange type 6?
At the last bakeoff, it seemed like every commercial vendor I spoke with
was implementing both config mode and xauth. Most had one or both
already, others were hard at work on it and all were eager to test it.
There's got to be a point at which a working group decision not to endorse
something has to take into account the fact that most deployed
implementations of the standard are in fact using exchange type 6 for this
purpose (quite happily I believe), and that efforts to deny that are at
this point just not going to be fruitful and only add confusion to the
working group. Were a different standard to be allocated that exchange
type in the future, implementors of said standard would be in for a huge
compatibility nightmare. For better or worse, these drafts have been mass
deployed by many vendors, and that seems very unlikely to slow down.
Stephen Kent wrote:
>
> At 5:24 PM -0500 2/21/01, Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
> > > Don't you think that the response Derrell received should
> > > be the response
> > > you receive?
> >
> >No, I thought the WG and IANA should have accomodated Derrell's request.
> >
> >I believe it is more important to be sensible than to be consistent. Others
> >may disagree.
> >
> >Reserving exchange mode 6 doesn't mean the WG has to give credence to config
> >mode. They can allocate it as "deprecated" for all I care.
> >
>
> I tend to agree with Dan here, although there is legitimate room for
> disagreement. Formally allocating a number to a proposed anything
> gives it credence in the eyes of many users. Some folks feel that
> it's OK to do this allocation even if the proposed thing does not
> become a standard, e.g., to facilitate testing etc.
>
> Personally I vote for sensible AND consistent :-)
>
> Steve
--
Will Price, Director of Engineering
PGP Security, Inc.
a division of Network Associates, Inc.
Follow-Ups:
References: