Re: TLS requirements (Last Call: draft-ietf-atompub-protocol to Proposed Standard)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> writes:

> Brian E Carpenter schrieb:
>> On 2007-03-13 20:43, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>> The text that got used in CalDAV (which is about to be published) is:
>>>
>>>   o  MUST support transport over TLS [RFC2246] as defined in [RFC2818]
>>>      (note that [RFC2246] has been obsoleted by [RFC4346]);
>>>
>>> with 2246, 2818 and 4346 all normative references. These type of
>>> "up-references" are not ideal and I believe there was some
>>> discussion going on somewhere about how better to deal with this
>>> type of situation.
>> ...
>
> As pointed out before, that text really is confusing. As a reader. I'm
> left wondering whether I need to implement RFC2246 or RFC4346. Or both?

I wish I knew the answer to this question as well... :)

Seriously, we're shortly going three separate versions of TLS 
standardized, 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, plus SSLv3. So, the question
of what to require implementors to do is a tricky one that
actually doesn't have that much to do with TLS :)

-Ekr

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]