Dean, (Moving back to the SIP list, which accidentally got dropped from cc list a few postings ago).
Yes, I was wondering whether SAML would fit in here somehow. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 November 2008 17:54 > To: Elwell, John > Cc: Dan York; Victor Pascual Ávila; Dan Wing; DRAGE, Keith > (Keith); Henry Sinnreich; Jiri Kuthan; Alan Johnston; Juha > Heinanen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dale.worley; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip] Moving forward on the identity discussion > (was: Interim meeting in Malta) > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:18 AM, Elwell, John wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > The present RFC 4474 assumes that the Authentication Service is > > collocated with a proxy on the SIP signalling path. The way I view > > the scenario you describe below is that the Authentication Service > > is not on the signalling path, and therefore it would seem to > > require a protocol between a proxy and an Authentication > Service in > > order that the proxy can obtain the necessary signature. I > would see > > that as a separate work item, which could be pursued later > (after we > > have solved the basic RFC 4474 problems. > > > > 4474 allows the auth server to be on-path or of, though on is > simplest. It even allows the auth server to be invoked from the UAC > via some unspecified protocol, such as that other SAML draft that is > kicking around. > > > By the way, any particular reason why this discussion moved > off-list? > > > > Paranoia? > > -- > Dean > _______________________________________________ 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
