I am strongly against it. If there are any issues that are currently being
solved using transport=tls (in practice), they should be solved in a
different way.
Regards,
Jeroen
Francois Audet wrote:
Normally, I would agree with you. But transport=tls is so
intertwined with SIPS that I'd rather fix both at the same time.
What I haven't heard is any voice strongly being against the
re-instatement of transport=tls (except perhaps myself, but I don't
care anymore: just want to move on).
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 16:17
To: Gilad Shaham
Cc: Robert Sparks; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); SIP IETF; Dean
Willis Subject: Re: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last
thoughts ontransport=tls?
Jumping in. I just happened to pick Gilad's message to respond to.
I've only been loosely following this discussion. But it
seems to me that this transport=tls issue is a distraction
from finishing the sips draft. Why does the sips draft have
any responsibility for addressing this issue?
I think it would be better to let the sips draft be finished
and then move on to addressing all of the (many) important
security issues that sips doesn't solve, as a separate effort.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
