|
[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 |