Perkins
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
HI Fred,
MIP NAI structure is some what designed for carrying an identifier that can be
represented in a simple structure. It is bound by the 1-octet size limit
defined in RFC6275. X.509 is a complex structure, it includes the signed public
key
Hi Fred,
On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Sri,
Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an
attacker can
spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intended
for the
authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:37 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
Hi Fred,
On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Sri,
Reason
On 7/14/15 12:19 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:37 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
Hi Fred,
On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
Hi Fred,
On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Sri,
Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an
attacker can
spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intended
for the
authentic
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:31 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
On 7/14/15 12:19 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,
-Original Message
This is doable using Hash and URL of X.509 certificate used in IKEv2
certificate payloads. See RFC 7296 Section 3.6. That should fit into 254
bytes assuming the URL is not extra long.
- Jouni
7/14/2015, 8:36 AM, Brian Haberman kirjoitti:
Hi Fred,
On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie Perkins
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
Hello folks,
The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicle ID
should be included in the draft. No resolution
@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org,
Charlie Perkins charlie.perk...@huawei.commailto:charlie.perk...@huawei.com
Subject: RE: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
Hi, I would like to suggest one additional identifier before publication:
X.509 certificate as per Section 5.2 of Secure DHCPv6
@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org,
Charlie Perkins charlie.perk...@huawei.commailto:charlie.perk...@huawei.com
Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..
Charlie, WG,
In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-IDs
in the current -00 version. Have
10 matches
Mail list logo
