Re: Authentication

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Thu, 17 March 2005 15:48 UTC

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:42:53 +0200
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Chris Nogradi <cnogradi@laurelnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <200503170908.53160.cnogradi@laurelnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503171741390.26677@netcore.fi>
References: <200503170908.53160.cnogradi@laurelnetworks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Authentication
Precedence: list
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

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?

I think this makes sense.  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.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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