Funny: i was assuming that we were talking about mutual TLS here...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 15:50
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: IETF SIP List
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Certificate authentication in SIP
> 
> Well, I'm going to be contrarian here. I'm not convinced that 
> this is needed.
> 
> I think certificate based authentication is a great idea. 
> However, I am not sure I understand why TLS is not an 
> appropriate solution.
> 
> DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> 
> > (As WG chair)
> > 
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dotson-sip-certificate-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
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
> Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 
> 07054-2711
> Cisco Systems
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.cisco.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to