Subject: Re: New revision of MPPE draft

From: "Bob Monsour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:00:47 -0800

Correction, I think Glen meant:

ftp://pinky.microsoft.com/pub/internet-drafts/pppext/draft-ietf-pppext-mppe-
01.txt

At least that's where I found it.
-Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:34 PM
Subject: New revision of MPPE draft

>A new revision of the MPPE internet-Draft is available.  The URL is:
>
>ftp://pinky.microsoft.com/pub/internet-drafts/pppext/draft-ietf-mppe-01.txt
>
>Some diagrammatic errors have been corrected and the section on
>synchronization has been clarified (I think!).  If you plan to offer
>comments at the L.A. meeting, please direct them to this (or a later)
>version of the memo.  Thanks!
>

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:19:54 -0800

Archie Cobbs <[email-masked]> writes:

>Glen Zorn writes:
>>
>ftp://pinky.microsoft.com/pub/internet-drafts/pppext/draft-ietf-pppext-mppe
-01.txt
>
>I have a simple question. Why is this protocol (an encryption protocol)
>negotiated using CCP instead of ECP?

Actually, this question really doesn't apply, since the MPPE and MS-CHAP
drafts are informational documents describing proprietary protocols.
Therefore, design discussions are really not appropriate, IMO: the only
relevant topics are the clarity and implementability of the protocols as
described in the drafts.  If you want to implement the protocol but can't
because the document doesn't provide enough information or is unclear, that
is relevant.  OTOH, if you don't like the design of the protocol or don't
want to implement it, that (to risk being blunt) is just too bad.  If these
were standards-track documents design input would be solicited, of course;
since they are strictly informational, it is not.

Assuming, therefore, that your question is just one of curiosity, one reason
is that I believe that MPPE was designed before ECP existed.

>
>Thanks,
>-Archie
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>Archie Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *   http://www.whistle.com
>

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:53:36 -0800

Richard Shea <[email-masked]> writes:

>Glen Zorn wrote:
>Glen,
>I have come across what seems like an operational stumbling block.  I
>did a test changing my CCP to request historyless mode (using the
>mppe-01 H bit, not the mppe-00 H bit) and my NT4.0 build 1381 (no
>service pack) machine config-ack'ed it.  So, if old implementations will
>config-ack the new option, how do you differentiate between an
>implementation that will support historyless and an old implementation
>which in effect is "saying" it will but won't (unless NT4.0 has always
>had this support, which I doubt)?

You are right, NT 4 does not support the option.  The behavior you are
describing is symptomatic of a bug in 1381.  If you install SP 3 it will go
away.

>
>Richard.
>
>-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>Richard Shea                                  [email-masked]
>Bay Networks, Extranet Access                     978-266-1011 x210
>