SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]

Sat Jan 12 02:25:51 UTC 2019

 But why do you think creating an out of band verification channel and separate port is going to work for this?

There is plenty of local policy available as well to mandate that  tls be negotiated with a set of allowed ciphers and prohibit others

—srs

________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri at dombox.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Doug Royer
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]

Hello Doug, it's happening in ietf-smtp. This is my first proposal. So haven't created the I-D yet.

I'm not sure how to create one.

That's why I published my proposal in the medium. Please see the medium link I posted earlier.

Thanks.

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 6:46 AM Doug Royer <douglasroyer at gmail.com<mailto:douglasroyer at gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/11/19 10:38 AM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
> Hello NANOG, Belated new year wishes.
>
> I would like to gather some feedback from you all.
>
> I'm trying to propose two things to the Internet Standard and it's
> related to SMTP.
>
> (1) STARTTLS downgrade protection in a dead simple way
>
> (2) SMTPS (Implicit TLS) on a new port (26). This is totally optional.
>
> I posted my proposal in IETF mailing list. I got very good feedback
> there. Some support my proposal. Many are against it.
>

What is the IETF draft name?
Which IETF mailing list did this discussion happen on?

--

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US  http://goo.gl/yrxJTu )
DouglasRoyer at gmail.com<mailto:DouglasRoyer at gmail.com>
714-989-6135

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190112/ad073945/attachment.html>