Paul Wouters writes:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> >> This is one particular implementation peculiarity, there
> >> will be others that behaves oddly. The point is, if we introduce a new
> >> Transform Type, it is very likely that backward compatibility can no
> >> longer be
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Valery Smyslov wrote:
This is one particular implementation peculiarity, there
will be others that behaves oddly. The point is, if we introduce a new
Transform Type, it is very likely that backward compatibility can no
longer be achieved.
Again, it depends. If the
Hi,
thank you for the explanation. See my comments inline.
> 1. Negotiation
>
> We are glad to see that you also appreciate the need to negotiate a
> hybrid group. As you may remember, we introduced a new Transform Type
> in our version 00 of our draft and it had not been well-received in
>
Hi Valery,
Many thanks for your email and also your interest in our draft.
As we explain in detail below, we don't agree with your conclusion
that our proposal is overcomplicated, does not take into account what
is out there, and insecure. Even if some of the features that we
introduce deviate
