Re: des-die-die-die and RC4

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Yu <[email protected]> writes:

    Tom> 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.

    Tom> Even if I were to restore the previous wording (which I think
    Tom> is equivalent to the current wording from an implementor's
    Tom> standpoint), Simon seems to have brought up the previously
    Tom> unexplored issue of distingushing the implementing of a
    Tom> capability at all versus implementing a capability and
    Tom> disabling it by default.  Do we want to say something as
    Tom> strongly worded as "implementations SHOULD NOT implement, even
    Tom> if they disable it by default, and MUST NOT enable by default"?

As chair, we want to say what 02 said unless we have consensus to do something
else.

As an individual, I support the text you and simon seem to be discussing.  I do not
support introducing MUST NOT enable by default at this time in the
document life cycle, assuming that my understanding that we've
previously discussed implementation is correct.


_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg