[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: [Uta] Last Call: <draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-05.txt>  (Updated TLS Server Identity Check Pro
From:       Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov () isode ! com>
Date:       2015-11-28 20:55:45
Message-ID: ACD8E200-7C4D-428B-B776-B5205A3620B7 () isode ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Julien,

> On 24 Nov 2015, at 21:26, Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com> wrote:
> 
> Couldn't the draft also update Section 5 of RFC 4642 about the use of TLS in NNTP?
> The NNTP protocol is also a protocol that is found in email clients, so it would \
> make sense to have consistent rules between email and netnews.
 (Snip)
> 
> Or another idea:  wouldn't the draft be worthwhile for a BCP like BCP 195 \
> "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram \
> Transport Layer Security (DTLS)"? 
> It could indeed be "Recommendations for TLS Server Identity Check Procedure".  The \
> advantage would be that the BCP can apply to email protocols, as well as other \
> protocols using TLS. It would save time for others, and permit to have homogeneity \
> and consistent rules across protocols, as well as increasing security.

Early on the WG decided to not do that and deal with different types of protocols \
separately. For example, requirements on XMPP and email are a bit different, so \
separate documents are the best. But of course nothing prevents people from \
publishing another document saying "do the same thing as this other specification, \
just use different SRV labels" (for example).

Best Regards,
Alexey


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]