Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Justin Karneges wrote: > >> I also suggest dropping the term "XTLS". That name used to have a meaning, >> but today it is misleading, and I don't think we need a special name anyway. >> > > Yeah, probably. I used it here to provide continuity, but I agree that > it is confusing because specifying transport security preconditions in > Jingle is not analogous to DTLS (the only other *TLS technology that I > know of). > >> Security in Jingle can simply be called just that: Jingle Security. Or >> Jingle Transport Security. Whatever name you happen to use for the new >> section in XEP-0166. :) > > Right. I think "Transport Security Preconditions" is fine. Then we need > each transport definition to specify how it handles those.
A further thought: are there any security preconditions other than TLS? Given that we can secure any streaming transport via TLS and that we can secure any datagram transport via DTLS, do we need extensibility here of the kind we have with application types and transport methods? I think not. Sure, in the far future it is possible that someone will design a new technology that supersedes Transport Layer Security for both streaming connections and datagram associations, but at that point we could look into make the security preconditions mechanisms extensible. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
