Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

Oops - s/NTP/NNTP/g below:-)

And since there's no active NNTP wg, I guess asking on some
relevant list(s) is the thing to do. If folks there think that
a short RFC to just fix this is useful then feel free to
get back to me and we can figure how best to progress that.

Cheers,
S.

On 04/09/15 12:57, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 04/09/15 01:58, Sean Turner wrote:
>> Also, I wouldn’t get too wrapped around the updates header because
>> the meaning has changed over time.  At some points it has been used
>> to point implementers at other related RFCs, but what I think the
>> IESG has settled onto now (Stephen correct me if I’m wrong) is that
>> the update header indicates that implementations of the updated RFC
>> are expected to implement the update (note that expected is too
>> strong of a word because implementing RFCs is purely voluntary -
>> there’s no protocol police).
> 
> Right. Though even that may change as IESG personnel change;-)
> 
> Anyway, yes the UTA BCP (BCP195. [1]) is almost certainly what
> you'd reference when you next write an NTP RFC that mentions TLS.
> 
> I would guess that folks in the NTP wg would be the ones who'd
> know whether writing a short RFC to make just that change is
> worthwhile or not. So probably the next step is to ask that
> question on the NTP wg list.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp195
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> 