Dan, again, with the text as it stands, what attacks do you see
permitted by these requirements that you believe should not be
permitted.
The text changes you proposed were considered but are rather
problematic for existing protocols. I don't think we mind mandating
changing protocols for real problems but we do mind doing so if we
cannot understand the problem we're solving.
I do agree that the proposed changes would be better using RFC 2119
language. If the authors want to fix that in auth48, I'll permit the
change. However I think the language is clear enough that it is a
requirement now so I will not hold up the document for that.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf