Simon,
Maybe we can lobby for it to become the default.
+1
(I think it would be the right default, even if I agree with John
Klensin's concern.)
Jari
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 2007-04-06 08:12, Jari Arkko wrote:
Simon,
Maybe we can lobby for it to become the default.
+1
(I think it would be the right default, even if I agree with John
Klensin's concern.)
Putting symrefs into all the xml2rfc templates would not be a
bad idea. If you want to suggest a change in
Total of 43 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 6 00:53:01 EDT 2007
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
25.58% | 11 | 26.87% |68184 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9.30% |4 | 10.46% |26551 | [EMAIL
In his previous mail Jari wrote:
Maybe we can lobby for it to become the default.
+1
(I think it would be the right default, even if I agree with John
Klensin's concern.)
= +1 too
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Hi.
For the last couple of years, we've been believing that EAP and GSS
used the term channel bindings inconsistently. For those of us
dealing with both, it's been a bit annoying.
I've been thinking about EAP a lot lately. and have come to the
conclusion that actually the terms are used
When I originally sent out the consensus call on draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt, I
managed to get a couple of details wrong.
Russ and bernard helped me try and fix my understand and here is where I think
we are.
I believe now we're just left with the question of whether the draft
says what we
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:41:09PM -0400, Charles Clancy wrote:
Sam,
In skimming through Nico's draft, it looks like EAP's crypto bindings look
something like GSS channel bindings.
Note: my I-D does not describe GSS channel binding -- it describes
channel binding. The reference to GSS
Sam,
Your observation is brilliant. Yes, I agree, EAP channel binding and
EAP cryptographic binding map to what my draft calls end-point
channel binding and unique channel binding, respectively. I had not
noticed this before.
Also, I think my draft's definition of end-point channel bidning
Nicolas == Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nicolas Also, I think my draft's definition of end-point channel
Nicolas bidning needs to be tightened just a bit: not only must
Nicolas the end-point IDs be cryptographically bound into the
Nicolas channel, it must also be
Charles == Charles Clancy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
to be an L2 identity. It can be any identity that's
meaningful to the parties involved, and can serve as the basis
for making authorization decisions.
As long as it's cryptographically bound to the L2 channel and
that
10 matches
Mail list logo
