IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: review of draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml-00

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 28 May 2010 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: kitten@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7563A68A3 for <kitten@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.726
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.726 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.539, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 vfZ4oqy2Ma-j for <kitten@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6A23A6820 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 05:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0AFC202F3; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:41:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 3AAA543EF; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:40:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
Subject: Re: review of draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml-00
References: <tslzkzn67n5.fsf@mit.edu> <077001cafc4b$603f0510$20bd0f30$@osu.edu> <4BFD2ECE.5020600@cisco.com> <07e801cafce5$4cf7f7b0$e6e7e710$@osu.edu> <tslvdaa4izt.fsf@mit.edu> <082501cafd03$0fe0f250$2fa2d6f0$@osu.edu> <87fx1eo2o5.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4BFE8F63.5080802@cisco.com> <87pr0ga6qj.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:40:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87pr0ga6qj.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> (Simon Josefsson's message of "Fri, 28 May 2010 08:19:16 +0200")
Message-ID: <tslhblsxkq6.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: kitten@ietf.org, 'Sam Hartman' <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, moonshot-community@jiscmail.ac.uk, draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:41:36 -0000

Simon, I think the IDP may end up involved in the channel binding
discussion because the client and server may happen not to have another
mechanism for an integrity protected channel.  In cases where the client
and server directly share a key or a key falls out of the SAML exchange,
I agree with you, no IDP interaction is required.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email