On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:36 PM Olle E. Johansson <o...@edvina.net> wrote:
> > > > On 30 Nov 2020, at 01:51, Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear TLS WG, > > > > I think RFC 7627 should update 5056, 5705, and maybe a few more. > > > > I noticed these omissions when looking at the kitten draft to use TLS > > 1.3 exporters. Having these updates would hopefully make clear what > > uses need to be updated, or at least show where there might be a > > problem. > > On that topic I have to repeat an earlier question that I did not see any > response to. > > SIP is declared in RFC 3261. This draft updates 3261. Does this mean > that the SIP standard is modified? To be SIP compliant, do one has to > follow this document too (after publication)? > > I’ve gotten a few pointers earlier that ended up with “It’s unclear what an > RFC update means”. > > I would really like it to mean that in order to be SIP compliant, you can > not > use deprecated versions of TLS. > Me too. Unfortunately, my understanding of the way things work is that there's no formal thing meaning "SIP Compliant". Rather, one complies with a bunch of RFCs and so people wouldn't be "RFC XXXX compliant", which isn't really what is wanted here. -Ekr > /O > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
