Re: [dhcwg] IESG feedback on draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Fri, 01 February 2002 17:18 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04549 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:18:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA28427 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:18:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27726; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:07:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27687 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:07:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03929 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:07:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl-64-193-175-153.telocity.com [64.193.175.153]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g11H4Sm25769; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:04:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g11H7cl01495; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:07:38 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:07:38 -0600
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IESG feedback on draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200202011642.g11GgmT01529@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <31D01AE8-1736-11D6-8A91-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would like to avoid having these two drafts require the implementation of 
RFC3118, since RFC3118 by itself isn't very deployable.   But you're right 
that RFC3118 does address the security issue, and ought to be mentioned.  
  :'}


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