Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: RFC 931 "Not Recommended" (Re: Authenticated SMTP, anyone done one?)
Message-ID: <6201.Jun1504.10.2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 04:10:20 GMT
References: <1991Jun3.163841.4114@bwdls61.bnr.ca> <17169:Jun1122:04:5791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jun14.142800.27168@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA>
Organization: IR
Lines: 30

In article <1991Jun14.142800.27168@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA> barrett@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA (Alan P Barrett) writes:
> I could find only two references to authentication protocols in RFC1200,
> and both are marked "Experimental" and "Not Recommended".  Why?

Basically, because they haven't been widely enough field-tested. (This
requirement rarely applies to the pet protocols of established IETFers;
it does make some sense that Party babies should get ahead... :-) )

As soon as some vendor adopts any RFC 931 code, I'll submit my revision
of the RFC and propose that it advance in status.

> How seriously should people take the suggestion that experimental
> protocols should not be implemented without coordination with their
> developers?

Answer 1: You mean someone takes that seriously? Uh-oh.

Answer 2: I hereby extend to all current and prospective users of RFC
931 this offer to become part of My Experiment. Of course, My Experiment
does not require anyone's active participation, as it is a low-profile,
long-term project. In fact, it's so low-profile that you shouldn't even
bother letting me know that you're part of it. Just use the code. :-)

Seriously, I am conducting a large-scale Internet survey, to see how
many hosts on the directly connected net support various TCP protocols,
including RFC 931. This should provide an interesting alternative
(old-fashioned, I guess) viewpoint to the recursive DNS searches
currently in vogue.

---Dan