Re: [lemonade] Re: WGLC 2192 bis

Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:

>[Eric Burger]:
>  
>
>>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-04.txt
>>  
>>  Have at it.  There are already a bunch of editorial nits found -
>>  look for content problems.
>>    
>>
>sorry if I missed previous discussion, but I think it should say
>something explicit about STARTTLS, ie., something like the client
>SHOULD issue STARTTLS before authenticating if the server supports it.
>this may require the examples to be reworked, since it essentially
>means you *always* have to do CAPABILITY.
>
Fair enough. Can you suggest specific text to be added?

>if this is unacceptable, I
>think we need a syntax in the URL to make TLS required -- I don't feel
>comfortable that messages may start getting sent unencrypted just
>because a server upgrade added support for DIGESTMD5 in addition to
>good old PLAIN...
>  
>
I was thinking about adding such syntactic element myself. I would like 
to hear other opinions on this before proceeding.

>on a similar note, should something be said about the special case
>which is port 993?
>  
>
No, this document doesn't describe imaps.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade