On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > In combination with Tom's proposed changes, this table should work well. I agree. > Agreed that some text about what qop 0 means is needed. I yes. Indeed, maybe we should even remove the qop column and state that we always use qop 0 unless otherwise stated (and we'll not state otherwise). >> KITTEN WG should undertake an extension to replace the broken qop concept. > > I worry that such an undertaking would degenerate into a full GSS-API > rewrite, but regardless that's out of scope for the current discussion. I don't think so. We've discussed it [since] on IRC, and it's not relevant here so I'll not burden the cc'ed with it. I'll bring something to KITTEN WG about this *after* the interim meeting that's coming up, but NFSv4 WG should not wait for it. Nico --