Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms

OK... thanks for the explanation.

Kid is a sort of "realm"... That's cool.

Regards,
Oleg

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <
tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Oleg,
>
> Good question.
>
> 1) Don't we still need realm in the third-party authorization ?
> Reply> No
> 2) Am I missing something ? I was under impression that we still have
> realms, together with the tokens.
> Reply> The kid (unique key identifier) used in the draft solves the
> problem of TURN server (resource server) to interact with different
> authorization servers (from different domains); At high-level it works as
> follows, kid is returned by the authorization server which is signaled by
> the client to the TURN server, TURN server uses kid to pick the appropriate
> keying material.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> -Tiru
>
> From: Oleg Moskalenko [mailto:mom040267@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 1:13 AM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> Cc: Simon Perreault; tram@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms
>
> I agree that two drafts can be kept independently.
> As for the ORIGIN attribute in the third-party authorization environment -
> don't we still need realm in the third-party authorization ? Am I missing
> something ? I was under impression that we still have realms, together with
> the tokens.
> Thanks
> Oleg
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <
> tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
> I support adoption of both drafts. I think there is no interaction
> required between these two drafts. For example If third party authorization
> is used then ORIGIN attribute could be used by the TURN server for logging
> purpose.
>
> -Tiru
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
> > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:51 PM
> > To: tram@ietf.org
> > Subject: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms
> >
> > TRAMsters,
> >
> > We are soliciting discussion on the potential adoption as working-group
> > documents of these two drafts:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-tram-stun-origin
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-tram-turn-third-party-authz
> >
> > They would be targeted at fulfilling milestone 4 ("Nov 2014 - Send new
> > authentication mechanism(s) to IESG for publication as Proposed
> Standard").
> >
> > If you would like to see one or both of the drafts adopted, or if you
> are opposed,
> > please explain why. Authors, we will assume you are for adoption of your
> own
> > drafts.
> >
> > Please consider the interactions between the two drafts. Is there
> anything
> > interesting or problematic? What about overlap in function? Is there
> any? If so,
> > is it necessary or problematic?
> >
> > Let's take two weeks to discuss this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Simon & Gonzalo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tram mailing list
> > tram@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>
>