Re: On the need for presence service identifiers
[email protected] (John D. Ramsdell)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.impp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Jon, I spent some time trying to devise a passive attack that demonstrates the need for notification request timestamps. Since I failed, I find I have no other choice but to withdraw my example. As a result, I can no longer justify my request for timestamped notifications, so I withdraw that too. John "Peterson, Jon" <[email protected]> writes: > A few more notes below. Sorry for the length... > > Jon Peterson > NeuStar, Inc. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:29 AM > > To: Peterson, Jon > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: On the need for presence service identifiers > > > > > > "Peterson, Jon" <[email protected]> writes: > > > [snip] > > > > Maybe this will calm your fears. Let's look at the big picture. The > > goal is to produce a protocol that meets the requirements outlined in > > RFC 2779. The requirement in focus is 5.2.4 of RFC 2779. [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]