Re: des-die-die-die and RC4
Simo Sorce <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.krb-wg |
|---|---|
| Organization | Red Hat, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 14:39 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > On 2/17/2012 12:33 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote: > > If it weren't for the need (for a little longer) to support a compile-time option for 1-DES compatibility with AFS, I'd be fine with an even stronger MUST NOT implement, provide, or on any other way allow kind of provision. If AFS doesn't get workable rxgk support soon that alone may kill it. > > Whether SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT is used should not be determined by the > needs of any one application that is currently deployed or might be > deployed in the future. > > This specification only impacts software that is developed and deployed > after the specification is published. Organizations are always going to > have to provide back level compatibility for existing deployments. Well, implementations are also free to violate standards, but new software may still need to interop. with old one. The problem here is that a "MUST NOT implement" clause would have only one possible escape for practical implementations: violation of the standard. I do not think it is reasonable for a standard to dictate a behavior that it is know in advance no serious implementation can respect at least for some time to come. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ ietf-krb-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg