Subject: Re: prot_ready, CFX and Larry's enctype negotiation draft

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:28:46 -0400

>>>>> "Liqiang(Larry)" == Liqiang(Larry) Zhu <[email-masked]> writes:

    Liqiang(Larry)> IIUC, Nico and I have difference in opinion only
    Liqiang(Larry)> for the question whether we can say the acceptor
    Liqiang(Larry)> that implements RFC4121 MUST support prot_ready.
    Liqiang(Larry)> Nico, if I did not summarize our discussion here
    Liqiang(Larry)> correctly, please let me know.

I think you also have a conflict among the authors of RFc 4121.  It is
clear to me that the WG intended to require acceptors to support
prot_ready and I believe the text does that.

The question is whether we want to require initiators not to offer or
use prot_ready if enctype negotiation is used.

I think that's a reasonable compromise and support it.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:45:45 -0500

> I think that's a reasonable compromise and support it.

At first glance it does indeed seem reasonable, if unfortunate.

I have to think about it.