Re: [Fwd: Re: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core]
"The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.opes |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
It's fairly tricky to negotiate cryptographic protection. For the encryption negotiation, I don't see how the transport gets switched from encrypted to non-encrypted in mid-stream. How can you switch from a non-SSL connection to an SSL connection during negotiation, for example? Wouldn't you have to start all over again, repeating everything that led up to the discovery that the two sides needed a particular protection suite? Do they also negotiate the authentication requirements? The closest I'd seen to any discussion of this was early on, and the notion was that if you were already using SSL you might decide during negotiation that the transport had already established a sufficient degree of security and accept it. What of that case? I think that the IESG may take issue with the idea that the extensions can change anything, including the syntax. It would seem difficult to analyze an implementation for correctness given such wide latitude in dynamic behavior. Hilarie