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

Re: draft-ietf-msdp-spec



Alex:

I got the context, but you do need to say what has been done and include the reference. MD5 (or TCP-MD5 as you think the authors meant to say) is not really used, rip it out.

Russ

At 12:18 PM 4/16/2003 -0700, Alex Zinin wrote:
Russ,

  Agreed.
  I've sent an e-mail to the authors.

  I think we need to remove words about IPSec and say "SHOULD support
  TCP-MD5", because TCP-MD5 is really what is meant, but I don't think
  current implementations actually support it.

  A bit of context here: folks understand that MSDP is not going to
  fly high, so there's not much motivation to improve the protocol or
  its implementations beyond what they already are. However, we do
  want to record what's been done, hence EXP, not STD.

--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Wednesday, April 16, 2003, 12:05:01 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Alex:

> Number 1 is obviously minor.  However, number 2 is a DISCUSS.  There is no
> way that anyone could implement anything from the sentence in the document.

> I just saw a note from Steve, and he clearly has similar views about this
> section.

> Russ