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-----