Re: protocol progress (again!)

Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> writes:

> C. Change the protocol draft to use something we know won't get
> stuck in the IESG for process reasons. Magnus made a specific 
> suggestion for this previously that we'd have to finalise on 
> the list in the event we get clear concensus on this option
> (which we need to get to proceed with it).

C, using TLS + DIGEST-MD5.

Btw, I note that BEEP is subject to downgrade attacks, is this
something that we should be concerned about?  I could not find a
particular requirement that would fit that problem in RFC 3157, so
perhaps not.