[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-hoffman-rfc2487bis-03.txt




Lutz Jaenicke wrote:
> From my understanding of RFC 2487 (and the latest draft) this behaviour
> is conform with respect to the standard.

You are violating at least the intent of section 4.  You are doing the
clients a grave disservice by advertising a capability when the obvious
necessary preconfiguration for that capability (such as installing a
cert) has not been done.

Since TLS certs are not common, such an implementation strategy is most
likely to lead to a server population advertising STARTTLS but unable to
negotiate TLS far outnumbering the server population capable of
negotiating TLS.  In such a situation, the STARTTLS keyword would have
negligible informational value; it would be worthless.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature