[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:04:43AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> 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."
Sorry, the above should read "it does open the door to making other
fixes to IKE that might also NOT be backwards compatible".
- Ted
References: