On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:19 AM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think it is being framed incorrectly here.
It's because you're buying into all of IBM's terminology.
Before I say anything else, let me say again: I think IBM is correct
and justified to not add the new ciphers to 7.1.
So if your entire point is *that*, then we already agree, and have
always agreed.
If you want to argue with me further, then you are ONLY arguing with
me over terminology and framing and which aspects of which analogies
seem appropriate.
One thing I didn't explicitly mention in my previous post is that the
rest of the world may (some would say already does) *require* the new
ciphers, just to communicate *at all* (refusing connections if the new
ciphers are not used). So it's not only a matter of security, per se.
It's that 7.1 is getting to the point where part of its
*functionality* (i.e. communicating with the outside world) is broken.
A lot of people, reasonable people, will take the position that they
*had* something that worked, and now it doesn't work. So it's not
doing its job. It's broken.
IBM isn't willing to *FIX* it, and THAT'S OK.
John Y.
midrange.com
