RE: <info> Command and authInfo

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Scott,

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick [mailto:patrick@gandi.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 5:30 PM
> > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> > Subject: Re: <info> Command and authInfo
> >
> >
> > But again, we shifted, my main point was having auth info used not
> > only for transfer but for other tasks. Or at least having the
> > _protocol_ not forbidding things, that a policy may wish to better
> > control.
>
> OK, here's my angst: we _had_ this in the protocol once before, and no one
> objected to changing things to where they are now.  If there's a strong
> desire to revisit that decision, I'd really like to see a lot more support
> for putting it back in before I spend the time putting text back in what I
> had to rip out last year.

We removed it once and there was vast agreement that it be removed, I have
not seen significant comments from impementors that it should be put back.

> So, I'd like to ask a basic question assuming that the compromise position
> on the <info> command has already been accepted:

Would you mind restating the compromise position -- I didn't notice that
we had one. I've seen some objections to the current draft in this are but
I don't understand what our compromise is; nor have I agreeded that we
have one.

> Should we put auth info back into the base protocol for possible use with
> any transform command or not?

no. There has not been a ground-swell for this simpley a single request,
which does not make consensus.

-rick