Re: Post-CVE Wishlist

On 07.12.21 19:49, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> = Implicit TLS =
> Reactions to implicit TLS were mixed, from "we should not do this" to
> "it might be nice to have the option, from a technical standpoint".
> Both a separate-port model and a shared-port model were tentatively
> proposed. The general consensus seems to be that the StartTLS-style
> flow is currently sufficient from a security standpoint.
> 
> I didn't see any responses that were outright in favor, so I think my
> remaining question is: are there any committers who think a prototype
> would be worth the time for a motivated implementer?

I'm quite interested in this.  My next question would be how complicated 
it would be.  Is it just a small block of code that peaks at a few bytes 
and decides it's a TLS handshake?  Or would it require a major 
restructuring of all the TLS support code?  Possibly something in the 
middle.