RE: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Fri, 20 February 2009 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pbaker@verisign.com>
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 9CBA33A6819 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:00:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.613, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 riNRz0-xmzPK for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:00:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colibri.verisign.com (colibri.verisign.com [65.205.251.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2953A6B7B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:00:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MOU1WNEXCN03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer6.verisign.com [65.205.251.33]) by colibri.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n1K4am9h011365; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:36:48 -0800
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.15.197]) by MOU1WNEXCN03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:00:54 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:00:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C99318.3582B8D8"
Message-ID: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C3166155768B2B0@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
Thread-Index: AcmTA53N/57hmUiYT8KBceniaqAeVQAElrxO
References: <20090220013123.A3F113A69A3@core3.amsl.com> <499E0FAF.8050508@dcrocker.net> <32672-SnapperMsgD8DB99B6C5C3C6DD@[75.196.55.86]>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2009 05:00:54.0737 (UTC) FILETIME=[35C4FC10:01C99318]
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: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:00:41 -0000

Just as a matter of observation, there is not and never has been a security requirement to rigidly separate authentication and authorization. Indeed there is no real world deployment in which authentication and authorization are not conflated to some degree.
 
The separation of authentication and authorization is a matter of administrative and operational convenience.
 
It is very rarely the case that every privilege that might potentially be granted to a user is known in advance. Hence the benefit of maintaining a distinction. But in practice the fact that a party holds a valid authentication credential is in itself often (but not always) sufficient to make an authorization decision in low-risk situations.
 
Thus an objection based on the mere risk that such a conflation may occur is not justified as such conflation has occured in every practical security system ever.
 
We do not issue employee authentication badges to non-employees. Thus an employee-authentication badge will inevitably carry de-facto authorization for any action that is permitted to every employee (like open the office door).
 
The Authorization/Authentication model is in fact broken, in a modern system such as SAML you actually have three classes of data with the introduction of attributes.

 
________________________________

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 9:32 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG



On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:04:31 -0800 Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>This appeal lacks merit on basic points.
>
+1.  I don't think I could have said it better myself. 

I was involved in the MARID and DKIM working groups and was involved in the
group that helped put together this draft.  All these points have been made
before and got not traction in these various venues.

Scott K
Scott K


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