Re: Loops (RE: CPIM changes)

Dave Crocker <[email protected]> writes:

> the goal of CPIM was gatewaying.  when did it get changed?

It got "changed" sometime before RFC2779, when we decided we wanted
end-to-end guarantees on things like, oh, security.

> d/
> 
> ps.  has anyone bothered to worry how the end-to-end requirements impact our
> ability to gateway to existing im and presence services?  some of them are a
> tad too large to ignore...

I've actually thought about it and the approach I've come up with is
that existing infrastructure is "unsecured".  Note that "mandatory to
implement" does not imply "mandatory to use".  Gatewaying to existing
systems would just imply not using the end-to-end security.  Users on
legacy systems would not have keying information, so senders wont have
any way to encrypt a message to them, and similarly those legacy users
wont have the capabilities to sign/encrypt their own messages.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       [email protected]             www.ihtfp.com



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]