Re: Authentication

Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net> Thu, 17 March 2005 18:34 UTC

In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503171741390.26677@netcore.fi>
References: <200503170908.53160.cnogradi@laurelnetworks.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503171741390.26677@netcore.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <d0fe25536e2482bc6b1e14136ad9e203@juniper.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:31:01 -0700
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Authentication
Precedence: list
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mar 17, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Chris Nogradi wrote:
>> Since you did not make mention of this in the document changes 
>> sections, I
>> assume that this does not mean that all implementations must support 
>> at least
>> this form of authentication.  Is the purpose of this sentence to say 
>> that if
>> an implementation uses authentication, it must support SHA1?
>
> In any case, security area typically will not accept any new protocols 
> which don't support SHA1 -- and further, there must be at least one 
> mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms so different 
> implementations will be able to interoperate.

Yep.  Luckily they are protocol police, not implementation police.

--Dave

Authentication Chris Nogradi
Re: Authentication Pekka Savola
Re: Authentication Dave Katz
Re: Authentication Dave Katz
RE: Authentication Gray, Eric
Re: Authentication Dave Katz
Re: Authentication David Ward