Ian Paterson wrote: > Are XMPP implementors > experiencing interoperability issues with DIGEST-MD5? If so can't we fix > them with a Best Practices XEP - as we did with SASL ANONYMOUS and SASL > EXTERNAL? Which of the 7 problems with DIGEST-MD5 mentioned in [1] make > DIGEST-MD5 less secure for XMPP authentication than SASL PLAIN?
+1 to a Best Practices XEP. If we can more tightly describe the XMPP usage of DIGEST-MD5, then we can have consistent interoperability on our network. At that point we won't need to worry so much about DIGEST-MD5 in general. /psa > [1] > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-digest-to-historic-00.txt
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
