RE: iSCSI:SRP

[Mike Eisler <mike@eisler.com>]

> Some important comments and clarifications:
> 
> > Now, I personally believe, as you mentioned in your note, that the right
> > way to do this is to have the SRP as a SHOULD implement.  But at
> > Minneapolis I brought that up and was shot down by the AD, and he told us
> > that IPR could not be a valid reason for using the SHOULD word.  "SHOULD"
> > we were told should be used for technical reasons.  That is, the following
> > statement in RFC2119, is being interpreted as being focused on the
> > technical:

As I recall, this is inconsistent with what IESG directed the TLS
WG to do. TLS, based on SSL, was not allowed to specify
RSA based ciphersuites as MUST, and instead, DH based
ciphersuites were specified as MUST so as to ensure
interoperability via unencumbered IPR.

	-mre