Re: [rtcweb] IdP in RTCWeb

On 03/22/2012 07:17 PM, Igor Faynberg wrote:
> Thanks! Now I understand.
>
> My only follow-up question (and that could probably wait until the 
> next week) is why not make BrowserID certificate adhere to X.509.  If 
> we issue self-signed X.509 certificates ourselves, what is in the way 
> of any IdP doing just that?
The BrowserID specification is the work item of a group that is entirely 
outside of this group.
You can certainly go there (browserid.org) to argue that they should 
change to X.509 certificates, but we can't decide in the RTCWEB WG that 
they should change.

>
> Igor
>
> On 3/22/2012 1:53 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> Good question.
>>
>> 1. BrowserID certificates aren't X.509, and that's all the TLS/DTLS 
>> will do.
>> 2. This lets us be agnostic about IdP mechanisms without having to 
>> change
>> TLS every time we add a new one.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Igor Faynberg
>> <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>  wrote:
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> A question:  For the case of BrowserID, I understand that a client 
>>> gets a
>>> certificate from an IdP.   If so, why you and I would not use the
>>> certificates from our respective IdPs in order to authenticate each 
>>> other
>>>   in DTLS?
>>>
>>> Igor
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>