Dean Willis wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> Where I think your analysis is wrong is principally in two respects:
>>
>> 1. A verified attestation of a meaningless identity is not a useful
>> form of authentication. Thus, it's useless for Bob to have a 4474
>> signature from the PSTN gateway unless he knows that that E.164
>> number can only be signed by that gateway. If he will accept as
>> equally valid a signature from any GW (and importantly, treat those
>> two entities as the same), then he is not in fact requiring
>> authentication in any meaningful way. Above, you're treating as
>> single-sided authentication cases which really are unauthenticated.
>>
>
> Well, if Bob accepts signatures from just any old domain, he's
> certainly screwed.
How is Bob to decide who to accept signatures from? It is presumably a
function of the SPs of the people who call him. So are people just to
say "I'll accept ATT, Verizon, and Sprint" and leave it at that???
>> 2. If you, as one side of the conversation, wish to know who you are
>> talking to, you need to enforce it yourself. You can't get it as a
>> side effect of offering your own credentials.
>
> As I've repeatedly said, the problem is not in knowing who you;re
> talking to. It's in knowing whether somebody else is listening in.
I buy into this, since it is often not too hard to convince yourself of
who you are talking to by voice, manner of speaking, etc.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
