Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

technical-discuss - RE: [InC-Technical] InCommon Baseline Expectations Metadata Requirements

Subject: InCommon Technical Discussions

List archive

RE: [InC-Technical] InCommon Baseline Expectations Metadata Requirements


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Cantor, Scott" <>
  • To: "Farmer, Jacob" <>, Nick Roy <>, "" <>
  • Subject: RE: [InC-Technical] InCommon Baseline Expectations Metadata Requirements
  • Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:59:22 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 128.146.138.8) smtp.mailfrom=osu.edu; incommon.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;incommon.org; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=osu.edu;
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
> I'm glad that we took the time to get it figured out, but I also don't think
> that the quality of SSL was meaningfully degraded in the interim.

A vendor not supporting something doesn't lead me to assume that it wasn't,
absent specifics. But nothing in a B range is really what I'm worried about
anyway. I think the actual grade is what matters. People should be able to
draw their own conclusions.

Basically, I don't love the idea of trying to require a particular grade, or
at least not much above a D maybe. It's the actual information that's
interesting to me.

> I support the idea of defining "good TLS" but I am reluctant to rely on this
> scanner to define it.

That of course is a discussion point.

-- Scott

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page