-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 29 Dec 2000, Nathan J. Williams wrote:

>> On the one hand, this is correct.  On the other hand, the project has
>> made a very strong effort to treat IPv6 and IPSec as first class
>> citizens in all respects -- people have worked very hard to make things
>> like NIS and NFS run over IPv6/IPSec, and even looked into making more
>> obscure things like ruptime and talk work (the latter will be Very Hard
>> (tm), btw).
>
>My point is that we should decide and document what we support. We do
>not have a documented commitement to support (for example) remote /usr
>over NFS over IPsec over vlan'd 802.11.
>
>I'll fight you over exactly what we should support, but I hope you
>won't give any argument that the current state of vaguely supporting
>"remote /usr" doesn't give us any sense of direction.

I'm with you on that.  Having said that, I'd place IPSec pretty high up
on the list of must-haves :-)

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6TVFp2JhG4/qi8rQRAnUbAKCiAlMZ1dqlnRHskYJVW1zH38LUawCfWbWe
gjwpdXE7B8hp477mSHxvhyc=
=jmu6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----