Re: V7R1 Updated SSL Ciphers RFE Link please vote!

IBM do take stock in the opinions of the members of CAAC (and CEAC), so if there is a way to identify RFE requests as coming from someone in COMMON, that can be good - now we haven't figured out how to do that yet. IBM is learning how to leverage the RFE process for general use, and COMMON and the CAAC are working to figure out what that means for advocacy, one of the important roles that COMMON plays.

On 12/21/2016 8:49 AM, Bradley Stone wrote:

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

We on the CAAC are aware of the problems and that we have not solved them
all.

And we are looking closely at the RFE process that has much to recommend
(heh) it. To Larry's concern, yes, we want to continue to find a way to
work that process so that we can still serve as that buffer. Perhaps to
find a way that people can indicate that they identify themselves as
submitting the request as a COMMON member.

Would being a member of COMMON matter as far as priority or attention it
gets? If so, I don't think that's the right path either. Nothing against
COMMON or the CAAC or the board (Hi Amy!).

I can also see from the discussion on linked in that some don't even
understand the issue quite right.

I am hoping IBM does understand as they have many customers on V7R1 that
use "client" software (FTPS, HTTPAPI, GETURI, etc) that don't have a choice
as to which cipher to use. That choice is made by the server we are
connecting to. The client has NO choice in the Cipher. And server side
applications are all but required to update their SSL certificates to newer
Ciphers to be compliant.

Brad
www.bvstools.com