Subject: Re: Protocol Action: GSS Algorithm for TSIG (GSS-TSIG) to Proposed Standard

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:00:51 -0400

At Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:09:35 -0700, Levon Esibov wrote:
> 
> Please respond with your feedback on which solution you prefer.

Well, if you're going to phrase it that way....  Other things being
equal, I'd prefer a third option that you didn't list: fix the
GSS-TSIG RFC-to-be and punt on backwards compatability with clients
that implemented from the now-known-to-be-broken GSS-TSIG I-D.

In theory, anybody who ships product code based on an I-D deserves
what they get if the protocol changes out from under them.  If we're
going to bend over backwards trying to help such folks out, it'd be
good if somebody could first explain why this is worth doing, perhaps
in terms of how widely used the I-D-based code is and how seriously
those users would be harmed if we ignored the issue.

In other words: bug-compatibility has costs, so it'd be nice to know
whether the problem is serious enough to be worth paying those costs.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:33:50 -0700

> I'd prefer a third option that you didn't list: fix the GSS-TSIG
> RFC-to-be and punt on backwards compatability with clients that
> implemented from the now-known-to-be-broken GSS-TSIG I-D.

this seems like the normal plan, yes?  there is a doc/spec bug.
we fix it.  that's our normal job, yes?

randy