Re: [xmpp] #39: prohibition on TLS renegotiation

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 7, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 7/7/10 9:02 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Kurt Zeilenga <[e-mail]> writes:
>> 
>>> I personally wouldn't have a problem with just saying "SHOULD NOT do
>>> TLS renegotiation".  That is, I don't see a particular need to detail
>>> how to implement a non-recommended capability.
>> 
>> I also dislike going into details about non-recommended approaches.  I
>> prefer MUST NOT over SHOULD NOT if we cannot think up at least one
>> use-case when the SHOULD NOT recommendation isn't followed.  Especially
>> since if a use case appears for TLS renegotiation, use of it (and what
>> it means for XMPP) can be described in a separate document.
> 
> Further: do we have a use case *now*? If not, why leave the door open?
> As Simon says, we can always write a spec that updates 3920bis with
> recommedations about using TLS renegotiation in XMPP. If we don't need
> it now, I'd stick with MUST NOT.

[as individual]

I concur. Keep it simple an unambiguous.  With out a strong articulable reason to do it, let's not put in a loophole for implementations to do something we'd rather them not do anyway.