RE: Comments on draft-zorn-radius-keywrap-04.txt

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Glen Zorn writes...

> As you know, there are basically 2 types of RFCs: protocol
specifications
> & applicability statements.  This document is intended (at least from
my
> POV, my co-authors can chime in here) to remain as strictly as
possible
> within the realm of the former type since there are several other
> interested entities that may define explicit (and possibly
conflicting)
> requirements upon the fields in question.  That said, have you any
> suggestions for text?

OK, I understand.  This draft is intended to be a "base" protocol, which
requires a companion "application protocol" draft to be complete to the
point of specifying what appears on the wire.  I also understand that
certain items, such as key naming schemes, are not commonly agreed upon.
I think it would be possible, however, to further specify what goes in
these fields, without precluding application specific variations.  I'll
think on this and attempt to come up with some text to suggest.

-- Dave



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>