IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Mon, 30 June 2014 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mom040267@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824331A0A89 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IqukI-x6G9Gy for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E76201A0A88 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id bs8so6600584wib.15 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cB/ngnxewvx8mRTYebSKiYG8hsHTC7ued/yOaFSZkok=; b=YRAlVHIvANzxLQ8h+NYa5svAVg3XG/iQRShPqzfMRqu00eIHHN4vU6+CzojIPq5bJX +x0CHmz4O5Zpi9q9vjoUeqehd1LZYO+N0YNmKi8oENMUbT/vHGRxllIsargFgPPrgpwG 2cD+NS1znQDTEGGlhD4DXrhCPx+3wrHt0lA6fdyDqYDe8XFHpIrFN3bFpSRUlEwLk87H MD2TuzjwCg+g4kdHGiLR207OA19XaXQgq4Cg+48d/+s3dbFPbWUgk1kEuNszJG0tqUUA RqzvciIY1Ij10hVHhaYUow1l+RI1aWXGB8LFH/5c4HGZ4AdzKLbaOzsUO0SsRL9xUJM8 5qFA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.161.136 with SMTP id xs8mr45538079wjb.31.1404157380475; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.120.71 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A282E8207@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A282E8207@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:43:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CALDtMrJ64vNT1WRHymypNDyfg23LdVgzokrtm8JNuRXdYr93Pw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013cc30adf414004fd12ddff"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/mE9clsqYad1FI8bdJ7kfNBRP_n8
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:43:03 -0000

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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email