-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/15/09 5:21 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> writes: > >> The SASL SCRAM mechanism is currently in IETF Last Call: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sasl-scram-07.txt >> >> This mechanism is intended to replace DIGEST-MD5. Does it make sense for >> the XMPP WG to specify SCRAM as mandatory-to-implement? > > Yes. (although I'm not a XMPP implementer) > > Did XMPP make use of DIGEST-MD5 security layers, in theory > (specification) In theory, yes (by inheritance from RFC 2831). > and in practice (implementations)? Not in practice as far as I know. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqvnJwACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxlqQCg2J52oTA8NqmpDZ+v5yH6T+tt T4MAoN7c4+8od+XKRvxfHEnQjeSu5qbW =GkXC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.