Return-Path: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id h08BISn02939 for ips-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 06:18:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f Received: from d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.235]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h08BIQW02930 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 06:18:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23]) by d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h08BIJv4003960; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:18:20 +0100 Received: from d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com (d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com [9.148.216.55]) by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id h08BII3K210268; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:18:19 +0100 To: Steve Bellovin , Black_David@emc.com Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0 September 26, 2002 From: "Julian Satran" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:18:16 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D10ML001/10/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 08/01/2003 13:18:19, Serialize complete at 08/01/2003 13:18:19 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 003DF28DC2256CA8_=" Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 003DF28DC2256CA8_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" The intent of the "offending" statement in 11.1 was to have a strong player with a new method forcing everybody into it by not offering anything else. I guess the phrasing was bad. Simply removing None will not do it since None may still remain a valid option if both parties agree: I would suggest the new phrasing to be: Private or public extension algorithms MAY also be negotiated for authentication methods. Whenever a private or public extension algorithm is offered, at least one of the authentication methods defined in this document MUST also be offered as an option. Julo --=_alternative 003DF28DC2256CA8_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
The intent of the "offending" statement in 11.1 was to have a strong player with a new method forcing everybody into it by not offering anything else.
I guess the phrasing was bad.  Simply removing None will not do it since None may still remain a valid option if both parties agree:

I would suggest the new phrasing to be:

Private or public extension algorithms MAY also be negotiated for authentication methods. Whenever a private or public extension algorithm is offered, at least one of the authentication methods defined in this document MUST also be offered as an option.

Julo

--=_alternative 003DF28DC2256CA8_=--