On 10/10/2013 12:21 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote: > > I suspect your confusion surrounds who exactly would be helped and what > that help would be. All I was saying is that there are deployments whose > operators and implementers don't perceive the need for such help,
I agree with that. > and that > we're unlikely to persuade them of it. Ah. I thought you had said that TLS wouldn't actually add value. But you actually meant it wouldn't be perceived to add value by those who don't perceive the need I guess, which seems a little tautological. > Making TLS MTU for SIP would have > no appreciable impact on those environments. The question is not IMO whether we declare TLS to be MTU for SIP. For me, the question is: Nobody uses SIP/TLS now. Using SIP/TLS would add some value. How can we make it more likely they do use SIP/TLS? S. > > Jon Peterson > Neustar, Inc. > > On 10/9/13 3:59 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/09/2013 11:44 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote: >>> A BCP could >>> however provide the necessary motivation for using TLS in the situations >>> where it will actually help, and the recent revelations make that case >>> rather eloquently. >> >> I'm confused by that a bit - given the GCHQ/Belgacom example, in >> which situations would running SIP over TLS never help? >> >> Note that I've not yet argued for MTU at all, so that's a real >> question. >> >> S. > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
