On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 09:16:28PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >Given https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7435 I don't see where there's ambiguity
> >about what opportunistic is.
>
> In Viktor's wording of "not already committed to using TLS" being equal
> to opportunistic.
Sorry, "not initially/a-priori committed to using TLS".
> During the opportunistic (security) process you can become committed,
> so the phrasing of committed versus opportunistic is a little
> confusing/misleading, because opportunistic implies "can result in
> plaintext".
>
> In my view, using opportunistic can result in a commitment (hard fail) to TLS.
100% agreement.
> That's why I thought Viktor's choice of words were confusing.
Sorry about that.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
