IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [TLS] TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

"Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Thu, 12 February 2009 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7DA3A6BA0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:18:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.339, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uz8d-ZdeJaLY for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C2EC43A6B58 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:18:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2009 19:18:46 -0000
Received: from a91-154-108-144.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.108.144] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 12 Feb 2009 20:18:46 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19x1Fozbc1xXFyYQIcUCPueiVeBzcyraRj4y+Mf/y E5khugCz7VHio6
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
To: 'Melinda Shore' <mshore@cisco.com>
References: <07d901c98d3e$0fdb9f70$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> <C5B9DD87.327A%mshore@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [TLS] TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:19:36 +0200
Message-ID: <081b01c98d46$d8c731d0$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <C5B9DD87.327A%mshore@cisco.com>
Thread-Index: AcmNOUsifPOne/+8RcqFVJ7RSjvsDAAA9ChwAAH+vPcAAFRa0A==
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.7
Cc: tls@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:18:46 -0000

Hi Melinda, 

>On 2/12/09 1:16 PM, "Hannes Tschofenig" 
><Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
>> The main issue I have been struggeling with these authorization 
>> extensions inside TLS is that they happen at the wrong layer.
>
>I don't know about that - I think it really depends on how the 
>TLS session is being used, etc.

Sure. A good example of SAML usage is WebSSO. Using SAML in that usage
scenario requires a bit more than just carrying around the SAML assertion. 

>  I think that the more ability 
>traffic has to describe itself the better,

Not sure I understand that. 

> and that there are 
>some non-trivial advantages to carrying authorizations in-band.
Namely... 

Ciao
Hannes

>
>Melinda
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status