Hi Rich,
Maybe a new RFC obsoleting RFC 4642 (which could at the same time
become a standard instead of a proposed standard)?
Is there any reason why NNTP cannot just use the UTA specifications?
When you speak about the UTA specifications, is it RFC 7525
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security and Datagram
Transport Layer Security"?
I do not see other document published by the UTA WG that could otherwise
apply.
Yet, NNTP still needs an RFC to specify the use of TLS because two
specific NNTP response codes are defined for the STARTTLS command:
382 Continue with TLS negotiation
580 Can not initiate TLS negotiation
and the STARTTLS capability has to be standardized in response to the
CAPABILITIES command -- which is a new command that did not exist when
you wrote INN :-)
Maybe I misunderstood your remark about the UTA specification, though.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Vous savez, les idées, elles sont dans l'air. Il suffit que
quelqu'un vous en parle de trop près, pour que vous les
attrapiez ! » (Raymond Devos)
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
