> Chris.Ridd> > The reason I have to cover what's in drafts is because most of what's
>out there
> Chris.Ridd> > is implemented from drafts rather than final standards (leading to
>problems
> Chris.Ridd>
> Chris.Ridd> You're right; this is something I've noticed PKI vendors (in
> Chris.Ridd> particular) do a lot, and clearly shouldn't.
>
> Uhmmm, like that's unique to vendors (for a commercial definition of
> "vendor")... Another example is ssh, which exists in a number of free
> implementation that have stayed with protocol version 1.5 (which never
> became an RFC) and are not moving (and in some cases: will not move)
> to protocol version 2 (which is, IIRC, an RFC, or at least has a
> greater chance of getting there).
>
> Let's face it, the world is littered with people who see a "cool
> draft" and can't wait to start implementing, and then get stuck, or
> don't really have the time to finish or go all the way...
>
But the reason that SSHv1 is still being supported over SSHv2 has
little to do with the IETF. It is because the only available Unix
daemon for SSHv2 has a more restrictive usage license than SSHv1. The
new license prevents universities, hospitals, non-profits, ... from
installing the SSHv2 server unless they pay thousands of dollars per
machine to SSH Communications.
SSHv2 will not advance to the Proposed Standard unless there are
two independent and interoperable implementations. But it is not in
the interest of SSH Comm. for that to happen because once there is a
free server for SSHv2 for an alternate source their revenue stream
goes away.
Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2
The Kermit Project * Columbia University
612 West 115th St #716 * New York, NY * 10025
http://www.kermit-project.org/k95.html * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
