Subject: RE: [Sip] 'sips' URI scheme (comments on proposal?)

From: "Sanjoy Sen"<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:09:38 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
<snipped>

>      My call here could be to have a MUST for enhanced digest and
>      a SHOULD for TLS, MAY for IPsec and SMIME, leaving SIP with a
>      scheme that can cover both h2h/e2m/e2e protection and
>      UDP/SCTP/TCP, and room for the different groups to do their
>      favorite thing in addition.
> 
I agree. As far as S/MIME goes, the only additional benefit that it provides
to (enhanced) Digest is message body confidentiality. I'm not sure that
requirement is strong enough to justify inclusion of a long and verbose
section on S/MIME in bis. Like enhanced Digest, it should be separate from
bis in a separate draft.

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:24:35 +0200

> >      favorite thing in addition.

i too vote for the above, because (non-enhanced) digest is what almost
everyone has implemented now and there is also a considerable installed
base for tls.

by the way, if one implements tls, then i guess also basic would be ok
or do we still require digest?  i would vote for still requiring digest,
because it would simply the ua not having to do both digest and basic.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip