IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] #148: Review of dynamic-discovery by Jim Schaad

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Mon, 04 March 2013 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5137221F892D for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:10:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ask0Uz0uFAGi for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:10:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5957C21F887D for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-98-216-0-82.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.216.0.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99C4C20229; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:10:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 385F84486; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:10:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
References: <065.a122826c6d7c009295065142646863ee@trac.tools.ietf.org> <512E23F3.3000307@restena.lu> <tslip5dn5jb.fsf@mit.edu> <512E2846.5090702@restena.lu> <tsl621dn4gq.fsf@mit.edu> <5134C626.7090408@restena.lu>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:10:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5134C626.7090408@restena.lu> (Stefan Winter's message of "Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:04:54 +0100")
Message-ID: <tslk3pnno2j.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: radext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [radext] #148: Review of dynamic-discovery by Jim Schaad
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:10:20 -0000

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> writes:



I'm missing something here.  I'm not arguing that eduroam should use
certificate validation. I'm simply arguing that there should be a MTI
certificate validation strategy.  We're documenting a generic mechanism
here, not eduroam practice, right?  I agree we want eduroam to comply
with the spec, but an MTI security mechanism you choose not to use in
your enviroment doesn't violate the spec.

--Sam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email