-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/02/2012 03:14 AM, Jim Schaad wrote: > Sam or Josh, > > After writing the below and trying to get a good night sleep. > >> 6. I think that you might talk about the cases where channel >> binding COULD be required even for network authentication. The >> fact that it is not > required >> does not mean that it cannot be used. One issue is going to be >> how an IdP identifies a network authentication service from a >> different service for > the >> purposes of deciding if channel binding is going to be required. > > I seem to remember at one point that there were some discussions > about possibly using abfab for granting of network access of some > types of devices. Do I remember incorrectly or is this still a > possible usage that might need to be considered in the > applicability statement.
Isn't that too deep a recursion for us? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlAZ2/wACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZneg0ACgvQNodkmCSnbzbmb01mTD+SK6 FTkAoLX8UN9RIkdLCO5c26gtCLu7P2f1 =bbOY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
