>>> 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 :-)

	if someone could set up some set of goals, and minimum requirements,
	it would be very nice.

	my another question is - can clients trust tftpboot servers? :-)

itojun