= Сообщение: 6190 из 7128 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Rob Swindell 1:103/705 28 Feb 22 19:54:12 Кому : James Coyle 28 Feb 22 19:54:12 Тема : Re: Re^2: Re^4: Directly include binary data in messages FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=31653.ftsc_pub@1:103/705+26834a89 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:129/215+e4b54183 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP437 ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:129/215+7337cfcd ============================================================================== Re: Re: Re^2: Re^4: Directly include binary data in messages By: James Coyle to Rob Swindell on Mon Feb 28 2022 05:05 pm
> RS> FYI, a few years ago, I applied for an IANA sanctioned TCP port number > RS> assignment for BINKPS (BINKP over implicit TLS, e.t port 24553). After > RS> a few back-and-forths, this was their final answer: > > Well the answer sucks, but your foresight in this issue was awesome :)
It was worth a try. :-)
> RS> So it looks like explicit/opportunistic TLS (e.g. STARTTLS) is the > RS> future for BINKP if it's going to become any kind of Internet standard. > > I hadn't considered the IANA aspect of this. I have no experience with that > stuff so naturally I yield to those who do. Is it a dead end to try again?
Yeah, I think so. Their protecting the assigned port numbers like they're Fort Knox and their ammunition is RFCs 6335 and 7605. :-)
> I can see BINKPS not having a large enough use-case to warrant a port. But > if they did give us BINKP port then I feel there is a case to be made that > they must also support the secure version of it.
That's the case I was trying to make (along with all the other "prior art" of insecure Internet protocols that have an alternate/secure port for implicit TLS connections, e.g. telnets) - but they weren't buying it.
> If you are still willing to support a STARTTLS BINKP I am down to pick that > up again and work on something together (and with whoever else wants to join > in). I can look for a backup of the code that did it (this weekend) and send > something your way, or we can start from scratch... Whatever works for you.
Yeah, we should do that. :-) I have a number of STARTTLS implementations in Synchronet already (e.g. SMTPS, FTPS), so I don't expect it'd be much different, thought I suppose this would be the first one I'd do in JavaScript (since BinkIT is written in JS). -- digital man (rob)
