>> My only comment is that I find it ironic that these two paragraphs >> appear in the same message: >[...]
>Why? "If you have to ask, you'd never understand". But I'll try to explain anyway. Your first paragraph says, "I will fight to the death to prevent a revision of GSS-API v2 that doesn't have gss_canonicalize_name()". Your second paragraph says, "If you want something standardized you must be prepared for changes to the (initial) proposal, and I hope the IESG still has the balls to enforce that". If you can't see the irony of these two statements together ... well, I don't know what else to say. And I believe you are wrong about not being able to change GSSAPI v2. Since RFC 2744 is only a Proposed Standard, it is still possible to change it in a revision. Note that I really don't have an opinion about gss_canonicalize_name() either way. --Ken -++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**== This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list server. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message body of "unsubscribe ietf-cat-wg" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
