Message-ID: <277DD60FB639D511AC0400B0D068B71E0564C734@corpmx14.us.dg.com>
From: Black_David@emc.com
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI extension algorithms (was no subject)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:28:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

Last (I hope) word on this topic.  After working through the confusion,
the following text appears to be acceptable to all concerned:

   Private or public extension algorithms MAY also be negotiated for
   authentication methods. Whenever a private or public extension
   algorithm is offered, "CHAP" SHOULD be listed as an option in order
   to guarantee interoperability, unless the administrator has
   explicitly enabled "None".  ("None" MUST NOT appear as a choice
   without explicit action by the administrator.)

This is acceptable to the IESG, it is the basis for what will go
into -20, and I believe it takes care of the "loss of administrative
control" concern raised by Nick Martin and Bill Stundemund.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 **NEW**     FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------