This is precisely the sort of thing that RFC 3195 attempted. You want
authenticated source? You can have it. You want authenticated server?
You can have that too. You can even have unauthenticated server with
authenticated client. As we've just released a revision draft, I
suggest people
Eliot == Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eliot And that leads to my other question. Why are we
Eliot implementing a separate TLS protocol when 3195 and its
Eliot successor both exists and has been implemented? That seems
Eliot to me rather redundant, and violates a tenant
Sam,
I got involved recently because both chairs asked me to submit a draft
to revise 3195 to reflect the work of -protocol-19. I have done so.
And so perhaps you can help me.
The charter calls for a secure transport. The milestones say TLS
(something that could easily be changed without
