iSCSI:SRP

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

Folks,
With the new statement from Lucent, we are now back to the point were we
were previously when we agreed to make SRP Must implement.

I propose that we go to the position we had before all this flap developed
about patent statement, and declare SRP MUST implement (as we did before),
and get that out of the way of our last call.

The code is available from Stanford's web site, and the Patent issue is now
just like others within the IETF.

I know there are some folks that are attempting to wrap additional security
around Chap, and that may be a good thing -- but we do not need to hold up
Last call as folks check out other options.  Remember, it is always the
quickly produced "fixes" at the last moment, that have a higher probability
of having a problem.

Again, lets make SRP Must implement, and Chap at least May implement,
declare the proposed additional Chap security as May Implement, and move
on.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com