RE: [dhcwg] Response to IESG comments on draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoptio n-08.txt

Hi:

I have incorporated Ralph's suggestion in revision 9 of the spec,  along
with changes to reflect the other IESG comments.  This new version has been
submitted to the IETF archive.

Pending the announcement of document availability from the archive, the spec
can be obtained from
ftp://ftp.nishansystems.com/outgoing/draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-09.pdf or
ftp://ftp.nishansystems.com/outgoing/draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-09.txt.

Markups visible in the PDF version show the text that was added or deleted.

Charles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:09 AM
> To: Charles Monia
> Cc: Thomas Narten (E-mail); DHCP (E-mail); Ips (E-mail); 
> David Black (E-mail); Elizabeth Rodriguez (E-mail); Allison 
> Mankin (E-mail); Charles Monia; Joshua Tseng; Kevin Gibbons
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Response to IESG comments on 
> draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-08.txt
> 
> 
> Note that, because there are no implementations of RFC 3118 
> today, and no 
> plans by any important vendors to implement RFC 3118 in the 
> future, making 
> RFC 3118 authentication mandatory will effectively disallo 
> any use of this 
> option.
> 
> Perhaps we can modify this requirement to something like "use 
> of RFC 3118 
> is mandatory if it is available in the client and server".
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> At 03:37 PM 8/19/2003 -0700, Charles Monia wrote:
> 
> > > "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> writes:
> >
> > > Is 3118 mandatory-to-implement or not?  I have a hard time 
> > > understanding why it should be optional.
> >
> >We will revise the spec to make implementation of RFC 3118 mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg