Re: [dhcwg] IESG feedback on draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt

> I would like to avoid having these two drafts require the implementation of 
> RFC3118, since RFC3118 by itself isn't very deployable.

Plus, has anyone even implemented it yet? Please?

On the point of 3118 deployability, there has been some private
discussion that what would be useful to have is a DHC authentication
mechanism that can use certificates, and that only authenticates the
server to the client. This would seem to be a useful deployment
scenario. Thoughts?

Also, note that the final wording in draft-aboba-dhc-domsearch-09.txt
on this point didn't require the use of 3118, but did point out its
existance. That made it through the IESG (but it also prompted the
above discussion about the desirability of a more useful/deployable
authentication mechanism).

Thomas

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg