I'm currently implementing TLS in my IMAP server and have noticed 
what I think is a minor inconsistency in RFC2595.

If you look at RFC2487 (SMTP over TLS), it is very explicit (section 5.2) 
about not issuing STARTTLS if a secure session is already active, yet 
this is not stated anywhere for any of the three protocols covered by 
RFC2595, as far as I can tell.

In one sense, I guess it can be *inferred* for IMAP because the client is 
required to flush any information it has cached about server capabilities, 
but it is never actually stated in as many words - and there's nothing 
there that says that the IMAP server should suppress the STARTTLS 
capability keyword after successful TLS negotiation either - all it says is 
"The server MAY advertise different capabilities after STARTTLS", 
which even appears to suggest that the server can advertise 
STARTTLS again if it wants.

I assume that in fact the same conditions pertain as in SMTP? I.e, that 
a client must not attempt to issue STARTTLS when a secure session 
has already been negotiated? It clearly makes no sense at all to attempt 
to do this, but sure as fate you can guarantee someone will try it 
sometime... ;-)

In the even that someone *does* attempt to do this, should the resulting 
error from the server be "NO" or "BAD"? I would presume "BAD", but 
would appreciate guidance.

If this is covered in recent IMAP drafts, I'm sorry to have wasted your 
time - I don't have a recent draft here, and RFC2595 is still shown as 
"proposed standard" in the rfc index.

Cheers!

-- David --

------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
  Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
           Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612

On the box of a clockwork toy from Hong Kong:
   "Guaranteed to work throughout its useful life."



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/imap/imap-list.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to