[Operators] Gmail federation
maranda at lightwitch.org
Fri Jan 11 16:54:30 UTC 2013
Il 11/01/2013 17:40, Kevin Smith ha scritto:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Marco Cirillo <maranda at lightwitch.org> wrote:
>> I'd like to also point out, expecially how STARTTLS is handled xmpp wise,
>> that you can't know what gets implemented and what doesn't explicitly as
>> long as you don't have the software, it's code or the implemented thing
>> reaches "the wire" or worse, getting into a world of pointless assumptions.
> And that's fine. The point is that if you're providing XMPP software,
> you must support it - I can't go and buy an XMPP server implementation
> from someone and it not have TLS support. Deploying without TLS is
> acceptable from the protocol point of view, this doesn't make you
> non-compliant. So in cases where the implementation is the deployment,
> like Google's, there's no practical foul from a compliance PoV to them
> not enabling/coding TLS.
> Which isn't to say that we wouldn't like them to support TLS, or
> indeed that they wouldn't like to support TLS.
+1, it perhapas would be for the best if the <<RFC actually fully agreed
also>>, the current wording mixes up *support* with
*deployment/availability* (and that could lead/leads to "incidents").
More information about the Operators