SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iSCSI extension algorithms (was no subject)



    > > No, because the interop-by-default issue, and all of the text we're
    > > discussing applies *only* to non-standard extension algorithms.  This
    > > issue is part of a larger IESG "hot button" on prohibition of mandatory
    > > vendor-specific extensions, hence getting a vendor-specific extension
    > > standardized, even if it's a MAY, is enough to get it out from under
    > > this set of requirements (as there's now a publicly available spec
    > > on how to implement it).
    > 
    > Ok. And I assume the difference between not worrying about a new non-X
    > method and worrying about an X# method is that the non-X method would have
    > to be a standards-track RFC, while X# methods are informational only? Just
    > making sure I understand it, since I thought you had to have 
    > an RFC to get an X#.
    
    Yes, modulo the likelihood that any new process like iSCSI public
    extensions process will have hiccups and get debugged the
    first time it's employed.  Also, for AuthMethod, the extension
    keys are Z keys, not X keys ;-).
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    ----------------------------------------------------
    David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
    black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    ----------------------------------------------------
    


Home

Last updated: Thu Jan 16 20:19:05 2003
12202 messages in chronological order