Subject: Re: RFC 3161 (TSP): update for the criticality flag

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:31:32 +0100 (MET)

> It will be replaced by:
You probably mean: 

  "I propose to replace it by:"

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 03:14:58 +1300 (NZDT)

Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]> writes:

>   A server that does not recognize a non-critical extension SHALL
>   ignore the extension and SHALL not return an error for this.
>
>   A server that recognizes an extension SHALL process the extension
>   regardless of the value of the criticality flag. A server MUST
>   reject the request if it encounters a critical extension it does
>   not recognize and in that case SHALL return a failure
>   (unacceptedExtension).

This is still in conflict with RFC 2459.  Why not just use the RFC 2459
semantics?

Peter.