Hello, Agreed, that this would be a valuable option/alternative to have.
Martin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Sip] Certificate authentication in SIP Hi, I think certificate authentication would be a valuable addition to SIP's arsenal of authentication methods, to better support environments where certificates can be deployed, in a similar way as RFCs 3310 and 4169 were done to support SIM-based authentication. So, I would support adding the topic as a charter item and adopting the requirements draft as a WG item as the starting point. Markus >-----Original Message----- >From: ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 13 June, 2007 18:58 >To: IETF SIP List >Subject: [Sip] Certificate authentication in SIP > >(As WG chair) > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dotson-sip-certificat >e-auth-03 >.txt > >Describes a set of requirements for: > > This document defines requirements for adding certificate > authentication to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). This > document is being presented with the intention of providing clear > requirements to any potential solutions specifying certificate > authentication within SIP networks. Supporting certificate > authentication in SIP would provide strong authentication and > increase the types of possible deployment scenarios. > >(Before we go any further, please forget all about the >solutions document - that comes later and we are not dealing >with it now) > >We need to decide whether there is support for a body of work >in this area, and therefore whether we should charter some >requirements work in the SIP WG. > >(Because this is security related we have agreed that SIP does >the requirements drafting and not SIPPING) > >So can I hear opinions of the WG on: > >- whether this represents a problem space that the working group >should draft requirements on? > >- whether the problem space exists but is something slightly >different, and if so what is that problem space? > >- whether there is a more general problem that the security area >should be addressing, rather than the SIP group addressing >something specific? > >- based on your answers to the first three questions, whether this >draft is essentially in the right direction to be adopted as >the WG draft assuming we create the charter item, or whether >we need to seek some other input draft? > >- and finally, whether (assuming we go ahead with this work) there >is any work in any other IETF WG that we should take account of? > > >Regards > >Keith > > > >Regards > >Keith > > >_______________________________________________ >Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip >This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use >[EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip >Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
