[TLS] RE: Last call comments for draft-santesson-tls-(ume-04, supp-00)

Will do.

Stefan Santesson
Program Manager, Standards Liaison
Windows Security

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com [mailto:Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com]
> Sent: den 4 april 2006 11:17
> To: Stefan Santesson; housley@vigilsec.com
> Cc: tls@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Last call comments for
draft-santesson-tls-(ume-04,supp-00)
> 
> Stefan,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Please include text about this
> in the draft as well.
> 
> Best regards,
> Pasi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Stefan Santesson [mailto:stefans@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: 04 April, 2006 02:08
> > To: Russ Housley; Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
> > Cc: tls@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Last call comments for
> > draft-santesson-tls-(ume-04,supp-00)
> >
> > Sometimes it is sufficient to specify the domain as the user name is
> > provided by the cert but that cert is used to access multiple
accounts
> > in different domains. In other cases the full name@domain is needed.
> >
> > We chose to provide for both alternatives using the same hint type.
> > This works well and I would prefer to keep it that way.
> >
> >
> > Stefan Santesson
> > Program Manager, Standards Liaison
> > Windows Security
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com]
> > > Sent: den 3 april 2006 17:10
> > > To: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com; Stefan Santesson
> > > Cc: tls@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Last call comments for
> > draft-santesson-tls-(ume-04,supp-00)
> > >
> > > Pasi:
> > >
> > > My comments were with respect to the user_principal_name within
the
> > > UpnDomainHint.  Sorry for being ambiguous.
> > >
> > > Russ
> > >
> > >
> > > >Russ Housley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pasi:
> > > > >
> > > > > >4) tls-ume: Would it make sense to define two UserMappingData
> > types,
> > > > > >    one for "user@domain" and another one for just "domain",
> > instead
> > > > > >    of combining them in one type?
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not think so.  The name is user@domain.  It would be
> > meaningless
> > > > > if only user was present, and t would me meaningless if only
> > domain
> > > > > was present.
> > > >
> > > >I don't know if it's meaningless or not, but the current draft
does
> > > >say that
> > > >
> > > >    The UpnDomainHint MUST at least contain a non empty
> > > >    user_principal_name or a non empty domain_name. The
> > UpnDomainHint
> > > >    MAY contain both user_principal_name and domain_name.
> > > >
> > > >In other words, one of the fields can be empty. And since the
> > > >user_principal_name field is of the form "user@domain",
> > > >it looks like the UpnDomainHint structure can actually contain
> > > >two _different_ domain names. In other words, the spec does
> > > >allow things like:
> > > >
> > > >   UserMappingData {
> > > >     user_mapping_version = upn_domain_hint(0)
> > > >     UpnDomainHint {
> > > >       user_principal_name = "foo@example.com"
> > > >       domain_name = "bar.example.net"
> > > >     }
> > > >   }
> > > >
> > > >But the draft currently does not explain what this would mean,
> > > >or what the domain-name-only hints are (perhaps they're
> > "Host Mapping
> > > >Data" for host certificates instead of user certs, or something).
> > > >This needs to be clarified.
> > > >
> > > >Best regards,
> > > >Pasi
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls