Re: TLS vs STARTTLS

Jeff and all,

Jeff Stephenson wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gardiner Myers <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 1:14 PM
>
> >Gaah, hadn't noticed that.  Having the extension be "TLS" in SMTP, but
> >be "STARTTLS" in IMAP and ACAP seems like a bad thing to me.  Would it
> >be reasonable to change the SMTP extension to "STARTTLS" at this late
> >time?
>
> I don't think it would be reasonable, since we're already shipping Exchange
> 5.5 with TLS advertised in the EHLO response.  In general I agree that that
> it would be nice to (1) have the capability keyword and the protocol command
> share a name and (2) have similar capabilities across protocols share a
> name.  However, I don't think it's that big a deal if these criteria aren't
> met.  I say keep it advertised as TLS.

  Well first of all it is not necessary to change SMTP to provide for
"STARTTLS",
but I will leave you all to figure that one out for yourselves.  >;)

  We already provide for your #1 and #2 in our TLS custom extensions in our
Interface Facility or MLPI currently.  However it would be nice to add this to
the spec.  Or create a APPS spec for TLS to do this.

>
>
> -- jeff

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email protected]