Mirror ports -- an abstract counter proposal

• To: ietf-tls@w3.org
• Subject: Mirror ports -- an abstract counter proposal
• From: Dennis Glatting <dennis.glatting@plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us>
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 17:29:46 -0800
• From ietf-tls-request@www10.w3.org Mon Feb 10 20: 29:52 1997
• Message-Id: <199702110129.RAA13315@imo.plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us>
• References: <3.0.32.19970210144248.0068c1b0@mail.ccur.com.au>
• Reply-To: dennis.glatting@plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us
• X-List-URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-tls

How about this as an abstract counter proposal to some of the
mirror ports.

Take the concepts of inetd and SOCKS and mix them together.
Reserve a single port requiring TLS. When a client connects to
the port the inetd/SOCKS/TLS daemon tests the connection
against a policy database. If policy permits, fork and exec.

Not only have added TLS to telnet, POP, and others not
mentioned, such as rcp and rlogin, but we now have a general
purpose protocol.


-dpg

• Re: Mirror ports -- an abstract counter proposal
• From: Dennis Glatting <dennis.glatting@plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us>

• Re: TWO WEEK LAST CALL: Regularizing Port Numbers for SSL.
• From: Jim Lawson Williams <jimlw@mail.ccur.com.au>

• Prev: Re: Mirror ports -- an abstract counter proposal
• Next: Drop me from the list
• Index: Message index of ietf-tls@w3.org mailing list
• Thread: Thread index of ietf-tls@w3.org mailing list