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
