The latest version of this draft resolved all my concerns. Thanks to everyone
that put in all the time and effort.
Cullen
On Dec 16, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> So let me start with I think there is great information in here and I think
> it should be published as a standa
Done:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-13.txt
The diff from -12 is here:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-13
Peter
On 1/3/11 4:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I just realized that we never replied publicly. Jeff and I had a ph
I just realized that we never replied publicly. Jeff and I had a phone
chat with Cullen (and Alexey) about this before the holidays, and we
plan to submit a revised I-D this week. Cullen raised some very good
points, which we've attempted to address in the forthcoming version.
On 12/16/10 8:22 AM,
Thanks for your comments. My co-author and I will need to confer before
replying, and that might take a few days given the length of your review.
Peter
On 12/16/10 12:17 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> So let me start with I think there is great information in here and I
> think it should be publ
So let me start with I think there is great information in here and I think it
should be published as a standards track RFC however I do think there are some
issues with the relation with this draft and the realities of what would help
improve security in deployment of SIP, HTTP, IMAP, XMPP etc
