Re: Your DISCUSS on draft-ietf-secsh-newmodes-05

[Russ Housley <housley%vigilsec.com@localhost>]

In the near term, I believe that it should be REQUIRED for implementations 
of the newmodes document.  However, I think this is an indication of where 
the group is going to replace the less robust cipher that is currently 
REQUIRED for all SSH implementations.

Russ

At 06:47 PM 9/6/2005, Ben Harris wrote:
> In article <6.2.1.2.2.20050906135509.06ae0520%mail.binhost.com@localhost> you write:
> >I decided not to respond immediately to your note.  Instead, I thought
> >about it over the weekend.  Here is my argument for selecting at least one
> >of these modes as REQUIRED.
>
> Can we just get confirmation: Is your intention that this should be required
> for all SSH implementations, required for all implementations that implement
> any mode defined by newmodes, or required for all implementations that claim
> to implement newmodes as a whole?
>
> --
> Ben Harris