Russ,
Thanks for that clarification.
This is what I poorly was trying to communicate.
Stefan Santesson
Program Manager, Standards Liaison
Windows Security
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com]
Sent: den 20 mars 2006 14:09
To: Stefan Santesson; tls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to
Proposed Standard
I need to add a point of information regarding "assisted" in the text
below. I insisted that the solution support multiple name forms and
that the solution include a backward compatible mechanism as new name
forms are registered. I did offer some guidance during AD Review to
ensure that these properties were included.
Russ
At 01:35 PM 3/20/2006, Stefan Santesson wrote:
<Stefan> We can't define a new user mapping type just to have one
more.
There has to be a use case with a need for one. The current hint can
be
used with a wide set of account names in practically any environment
that use the principles of user(_at_)domain(_dot_)
But the extensibility is there in case a new need is there in the
future.
The security AD (Russ) has assisted in developing that part of the
document.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf