- From: Manros, Carl-Uno B <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:16:38 +0100 (BST)
- To: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>, "Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com" <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
John, We have been over this subject with the IETF Application Area Directors. They don't want to see any extra ports for security. Full stop. Carl-Uno > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stracke [mailto:francis@ecal.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 9:48 AM > To: Http-Wg@Hplb. Hpl. Hp. Com > Subject: Re: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 draft available > > > Scott Lawrence wrote: > > > Part of the goal here is to show how secured and unsecured > traffic in any > > protocol can share a TCP well known port, so that we can > get away from > > assigning two ports to each protocol. > > But aren't there security benefits to having separate ports > (e.g., making it > possible to run your secure server in a separate process)? > > -- > /=============================================================\ > |John Stracke | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK | > |francis@ecal.com|============================================| > |Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed | > |eCal Corp. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch | > \=============================================================/ > > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 1999 04:10:04 UTC