Re: draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt

Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.multi6
Message-ID <[email protected]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-06-10, at 14.53, Erik Nordmark wrote:

>
>> later on you ask:
>>    "[TBD: Does one-way authentication, without mutual authentication,
>> add a
>>     different class of applications?]"
>>
>> As i understand this section, the analysis is divided in two: first 
>> the
>> initiator end and then the responding end.
>> The initiator, always care about the identity of the target, since it
>> wants to communicate with a given node. So. in this part you discuss
>> the possibility of using TLS to provide strong authentication of the
>> target
>> Next you discuss the responder p.o.v. and you discuss different
>> mechanisms that the responder can use to verify the initiator.
>>
>> So my reading is that responder verification and initiator 
>> verification
>> are independent from one another and that the one way authentication 
>> is
>> already considered in the analysis. am i missing something?
>
> Yes, you're right. Thanks for making that clear to me.

But doesn't one-way authentication without mutual authentication imply 
a different trust model? I.e one end chooses to not to authenticate 
while the other end does authenticate.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQMxdT6arNKXTPFCVEQK4MQCfXOiTv9ddX5k5zDbdjuj9/ZC3PyYAni8Y
QoXE6YFGCxi2sCFtrPkMK4+h
=4r2U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.