On 10/03/2012 03:30 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
>>
>>    Josh> I agree that is an option; and it wouldn't be the end of the
>>    Josh> world if that's where we end up. But I believe it would impede
>>    Josh> interoperable deployments because it defers this discussion to
>>    Josh> implementers and users who won't, on the whole, care about or
>>    Josh> understand the issues. I would prefer to have a simple
>>    Josh> interoperable solution that works for 99% of the users than a
>>    Josh> less constrained but accordingly more complex solution that
>>    Josh> satisfies the remaining 1%.
>>
>> IDP MAY sign + RP MAY ignore + RP MUSt verify doesn't meet the IETf's
>> interoperability criteria because an IDP that does not support
>> signatures cannot work with an RP that requires them.
> 
> I agree. I thought Stephen's suggestion was IdP MAY sign + RP MAY verify.
> This at least gets you interoperability, in the absence of a common TA, if
> the RP chooses not to verify the signature (if any).

Sam clarified his take on the above for me offlist.

He's concerned that the option I wrote down would allow
an RP implementation that insisted on always checking
signatures and didn't offer the option to not verify
some or all signatures.

I agree that if its ok to not check some signatures
then its also ok to dis-allow implementations that
insist on checking all signatures.

I'm not so sure that's the same as saying that ignoring
signatures is *the* MTI though. You could also make
the ability to check signatures MTI. (Again, I'm not
saying such an option is right, I'm still trying to
understand this stuff.)

S.

> 
>> So, I would not support a MTI strategy that depended  on shared trust
>> anchors.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Josh.
> 
> 
> 
> Janet is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
> by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
> and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab

Reply via email to