Re: [rtcweb] IdP and universal trust
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D0921F8B0D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.254, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 x8MT91Bkgi7I for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc4-s3.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc4-s3.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9738021F8AE2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT0-P7-EAS105 ([65.55.90.200]) by snt0-omc4-s3.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:02:48 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [130.129.20.41]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <snt0-p7-eas105C385419C114651AEC86A93480@phx.gbl>
References: <CABkgnnWwaAgF5YQ0dP45yeYetRjBuuSt2C9epHtcTcUqeRkd+g@mail.gmail.com> <blu0-P2-EAS10401F750CA9A684CE265C93480@phx.gbl> <CABkgnnVC3122KOgbhsj5Ag=UwtscxDBAb-MOfHdCjh+K6FOrkg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVC3122KOgbhsj5Ag=UwtscxDBAb-MOfHdCjh+K6FOrkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:03:20 +0200
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2012 14:02:48.0220 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F5785C0:01CD0DB4]
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] IdP and universal trust
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:02:51 -0000
While they would be perceived as different with first party IdP, a signed assertion is still meaningless without some proof that the E.164 number is actually owned by the domain making the assertion. On Mar 29, 2012, at 15:30, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 March 2012 14:46, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote: >> For example, +14255551212@example.com is equivalent to +14255551212@eviltwin.example.net > > Actually, if third party assertions were prohibited, these would be > considered different, though I suspect that a user would have some > difficulty making the distinction. > > But I take your point.
- [rtcweb] IdP and universal trust Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] IdP and universal trust Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] IdP and universal trust Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] IdP and universal trust Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] IdP and universal trust Martin Thomson