Re: Servers that just want to have TLS

Rodney,

Rodney Thayer wrote:
> 
> Interesting.  Again I find that I'm thinking APPLICATIONS and other people
> are thinking PUBLIC SERVERS.

  Well I think what we or some are talking about is applications on
server platforms.
> 
> I agree with you, an ISP might not want to set this up for their SMTP (or
> other public server).

  Yes.  And we need to fand a "Path of least resistance" to be
encouraging
at least to facilitate this form an application point of view on any
server
platform.  This could be wraped up in the standard if handled properly. 
But
my biggist concern is that if don in this manner, the standard will
either
be ignored by a larg segment of the ISP community or alternitive
standards
will be draft that are not inclusive.  
> 
> Of course, an ENLIGHTNED ISP might want to *sell* this feature as it's
> spam-defensible...

  Good point!  We need to set this as part of the benifits of the
standard.
> 
> At 09:29 AM 5/8/97 +0100, you wrote:
> >Rodney,
> >
> >Rodney Thayer wrote:
> >>
> >> What to do if a server JUST wants to talk TLS....
> >>
> >> I was thinking that one valid implementation path would be to simply always
> >> use the TLS code.  So, if someone tried to talk to you in the clear, you'd
> >> fail negotiation.  End of story.  Just like if you telnet to
> >> www.openmarket.com port 443 (a/k/a <https://www.openmarket.com>) with a
> >> generic Telnet client.
> >
> >  On the serfice this sounds sensable.  I guess my concern would be that
> >many ISP's would not wish to be limited to "TLS Only".  Hence I would
> >perpose a common interface structure, similar to what we built and use
> >that can support multipul security protocols. >;)
> >

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v- office)
E-Mail [email protected]