Re: CNONCE: proposed resolution

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Scott Lawrence wrote:

> Paul Leach wrote:
> 
> > I think that absence of cnonce should be illegal if qop=auth or
> > qop=auth-int is selected by the client; if the client really _demands_ 
> > to be totally braindead, it can send a constant as its cnonce.
> 
> I'm also happy with that solution.
> 

I prefer this also.

John Franks
john@math.nwu.edu

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 1998 14:41:49 UTC