Dear all, Yes, it is important to specify a lot "tls-exporter", badly, a lot of projects do not support yet. It can be because a library of a project does not support.
Some projects support: - nothing - "tls-unique" only - "tls-server-end-point" only - "tls-unique" and "tls-server-end-point" - "tls-unique" and "tls-exporter" - "tls-server-end-point" and "tls-exporter" (full compatibility with old and new systems) - "tls-unique" and "tls-server-end-point" and "tls-exporter" (full compatibility with old and new systems) - "tls-exporter" only (no compatible with old systems) The "tls-server-end-point" support permits a more easy migration from old systems to new systems before to be perfect with "tls-exporter" support. Regards, BOCQUET Ludovic ________________________________________ From: Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 10:13 AM To: Daniel Gultsch Cc: [email protected] Subject: [Standards] Re: LAST CALL: XEP-0440 (SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability) Another comment: please hyperlink 'tls-exporter' with a reference to RFC 9266, for example in the final sentence of section 3. I think citing RFC 9266 is important to have a reference for the 'tls-exporter' specification and the security discussion in that document. /Simon _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
