On 27 juillet 2014 16:40:40 HAE, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >Bonjour Simon, > >On 28/07/2014 03:09, Simon Perreault wrote: >> Le 2014-07-26 11:00, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : >>> Problem 6 (Hosting multiple realms on a single IP address is >>> challenging...) >>> doesn't really seem to be a problem with authentication as such, so >while >>> it's clearly a problem, is it in scope? It isn't quite clear to me >that >>> there's a security threat there. >> >> IMHO the draft is not limited to *security* problems, but any kind of >> problem caused by STUN's current authentication mechanism. Problem 6 >is >> indeed a "missing functionality" problem. > >Sure. In the introduction, the draft says > This note focuses on listing the problems with current STUN > authentication for TURN so that it can serve as the basis for > stronger authentication mechanisms. >That made me think that the scope was intended to be security >issues, that's all. Not a big deal, but you could clarify the scope, >e.g. > >This note focuses on listing security and practical problems with >current STUN > authentication for TURN so that it can serve as the basis for > stronger authentication mechanisms. > > Brian
Works for me! Thanks, Simon _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
