Re: rfc2385

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On torsdag, april 03, 2003 19:45:27 -0500 Steve Bellovin 
<smb@research.att.com> wrote:

> Grepping the RFC directory shows that LDP (RFC 3036) mandates 2385, too.
> Does this change what we want to do?  Or is LDP "close enough" to BGP
> that the same reasoning will apply?  (3446 also suggests 2385.  This
> spreading use is the reason I don't want to promote 2385.)
LDP has far less installed base, and its standards track progress has been 
EOLed by the WG. So we're unlikely to face the prospect of Draft status for 
LDP.

that said, it increases the reasons why the statement "Don't use TCP-MD5" 
should be made in such a way that people checking out its status will find 
it.

               Harald