John Hascall wrote: >> Ok, this picture confuses me a bit. Actually, it confuses me a lot. > > Sorry, I was speaking in the abstract. > It is obviously too late to change how existing implementations > of rx work. My whole point, if I had one, was that having a > securityIndex field is made somewhat less useful by there being > no secure way for the ends to negotiate it. > > Which, coming back full circle, is why we seem to be stuck with > the icky extra-protocol hack of using afs-k5 vs afs.
This is a pointless discussion. We aren't going to break existing deployments of AFS.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
