> For these reasons, I was experimenting with opportunistic SSL for BINKP. > With opportunistic SSL the connection is always on the same port and if both > clients support SSL it will convert the connection prior to any > authentication.
FYI, a few years ago, I applied for an IANA sanctioned TCP port number assignment for BINKPS (BINKP over implicit TLS, e.t port 24553). After a few back-and-forths, this was their final answer: -=-=-=-=-=- We have a response from the expert:
The reviews for port assignments is subject to RFCs 6335 and 7605. We have provided advice according to those docs.
The way forward that has been chosen and deployed is not consistent with those docs; we therefore do not recommend approval of the request. -=-=-=-=-=-
So it looks like explicit/opportunistic TLS (e.g. STARTTLS) is the future for BINKP if it's going to become any kind of Internet standard. -- digital man (rob)
Synchronet "Real Fact" #86: Stephen and Rob have a fledgling podcast at http://techdorks.net (also iTunes) Norco, CA WX: 78.8°F, 11.0% humidity, 8 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs --- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
