[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 04:22:08PM -0800, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> At 6:18 PM -0500 3/15/01, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >That being said, I believe that if we did do a poll, we would see a
> >strong mandate for something which is "implementation preserving".
>
> That poll was taken a year ago, by you, in Adelaide. If I remember
> correctly, the result was not what you have said here. The result was
> that people wanted a new version number in exchange for knowing that
> it would be much easier to implement.
Yes, that's what I just refered to in the earlier paragraph, when I
said this has come up before. A new version number, and an
incompatible change to how we calculate the hash function.
This basically means that we bump the major version number and make a
non-backwards compatible change.
However, if we go this far, then it does open the door to making other
fixes to IKE that might also be backwards compatible. That's a poll
which *hasn't* been done yet, but if we did do such a poll, I believe
we would see support for fixing other things while we were making the
above-mentioned backwards incompatible change --- as long as it were
"implementation preserving."
- Ted
Follow-Ups:
References: