I guess what I would like is for a variety of authentication methods be
considered and determine if additional functionality is required within
CRI to accommodate. I'm not endorsing a particular method, but would
like someone to possible show a scenario or two where one or more might
be used and determine if we require modifications.
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of
david
nicol
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:51 PM
To: Eric Dean
Cc: 'Deven T. Corzine'; 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Andrew Akehurst';
asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Challenge/response - CRI
In the terms of my quoted message, listing a method or methods in the
protocol would constitute approval.
Don't want to get bogged down in the morass of "violent agreement."
Cheers
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:54, Eric Dean wrote:
I'm not sure that we have to approve anything...we just have to have
a
protocol provide capabilities for interoperability..we don't have to
select a method..but rather design a protocol that will accommodate.
I imagine one would hash all the MIME parts together. Or do
whatever
GPG does with a MIME message. This but has been solved, there is
only
to select an approach and approve it.
--
David Nicol / If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer.
http://gallaghersmash.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg