Re: [Stox] SIPS URIs and SIP/XMPP gateways - WAS: review: stox-core-04

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/27/13 7:46 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> (Adding Jon)
> 
> Peter - is there nothing in XMPP that lets a client say "I want
> this to use secure transports only - have it fail rather than use
> an insecure transport anywhere along its delivery path?"

No. That doesn't mean we don't need it (although in general people
have thought we *wouldn't* need it if we could just define an
end-to-end encryption method that solve all the relevant use cases).

> That's the primary property you should discuss. Without putting a
> lot of thinking into it, I suspect that if you _don't_ have a way
> to express that available (which is what I'm taking away from your
> last sentence), the right guidance in the document is to refuse to
> gateway a SIP request that expresses that requirement.

Indeed, that seems correct.

Thanks for the guidance.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSRa7mAAoJEOoGpJErxa2p6S4P/jaAJ4+xGEETfoibeB9TvWHp
WdYkNZRElevCJBBVQoR47r92paCBoIsTREKh59ImHTNfxRa6CUojUvPhyGNDZ9E5
qLbPUI1C9sBbn53Q7lJwfkgBDYlcBRiv06SipoGBuVJaHbgYtGKYaI/ZsmUAHqGn
CHT9BxlxZdYbgiS3pqwYPpunD9FiJ0/hXEA5/VchONJVh1PGL+/FX/c/UkOjZd3Z
ZSoGzwltwqgRshwxK92gMkvcmq87qgdYUFJxPXbzRj8BYpy92W92lThpBpK8Bh8W
RzwV8zBYppFea/SSBk8dnBZv27FJQ/Z1+q510zlcjEL0KIG582HfqsrJy1BELT9Q
ZbltLm4GSAzFqyIGRFE81Xh4PUXJx5TRXeIJa5aA2iornq8lpiJsEsANh9zbHASR
G8dACj45gLrL1k6hVsvCsNFjze4dUWSdtk1HCDqXSxkTpF280HleqCQ2wumNaiyp
zuMDt4MPq1Afv/E1sxCglkTT8n/9rpIxEGOVzsT9RDEnMR9VeH1dBk6vYbjJBbOp
j0Et24tb3DfGbwywLhu7HoyKxfroehx8MNaVt26ZeBUfX/XVpNOL7R1oUsV4s10Y
rVsNpiiWV1hgLny76hxS3371BIdVhuWKU8PQtdf6B+WsBpsL9v/X4mk7+9jkn+R8
MiV0YiTqHpLT2GZtJO1R
=/e37
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----