+1 .. unlikely is a mild word. I would have probably used the words never persuade them.
-----Original Message----- From: Peterson, Jon [mailto:jon.peter...@neustar.biz] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 7:21 PM To: Stephen Farrell; Richard Shockey; 'perpass' Subject: Re: [perpass] mandatory-to-implement vs. more? I suspect your confusion surrounds who exactly would be helped and what that help would be. All I was saying is that there are deployments whose operators and implementers don't perceive the need for such help, and that we're unlikely to persuade them of it. Making TLS MTU for SIP would have no appreciable impact on those environments. Jon Peterson Neustar, Inc. On 10/9/13 3:59 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > >On 10/09/2013 11:44 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote: >> A BCP could >> however provide the necessary motivation for using TLS in the >> situations where it will actually help, and the recent revelations >> make that case rather eloquently. > >I'm confused by that a bit - given the GCHQ/Belgacom example, in which >situations would running SIP over TLS never help? > >Note that I've not yet argued for MTU at all, so that's a real >question. > >S. _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
