Re: des-die-die-die and RC4
Tom Yu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.krb-wg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Sam Hartman <[email protected]> writes: > Given Simon's objection we'd need to see support for a change from > implement to provide in order to reach rough consensus on that change. Even if I were to restore the previous wording (which I think is equivalent to the current wording from an implementor's standpoint), Simon seems to have brought up the previously unexplored issue of distingushing the implementing of a capability at all versus implementing a capability and disabling it by default. Do we want to say something as strongly worded as "implementations SHOULD NOT implement, even if they disable it by default, and MUST NOT enable by default"? _______________________________________________ ietf-krb-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg