[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.
With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore
delete relevant posts by non-subscribers.
Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

Well, that certainly would be an easy solution (in terms of changes to
the draft and also the conflict resolution draft). But, do how practical
is this? How likely is the IESG to accept this?

- Bernie=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]=20
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:48 PM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Olaf=20
> Kolkman; Harald@alvestrand.no; Stig Venaas; ogud@ogud.com;=20
> Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Open issues in DHCP FQDN, DHCID and=20
> DDNS-DHCP Related RFCs
>=20
> On Monday 06 February 2006 07:59, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > Perhaps there's other solutions?

>=20
> My vote would be to take out the hash entirely - it was=20
> unnecessary to begin=20
> with, and the idea of radically complexifying the protocol to=20
> make it more=20
> secure when there was no real need for it in the first place=20
> strikes me as a=20
> huge and painful mistake.
>=20



--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: