Re: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-cema-05 WGLC comments - Section 4 and editorials (Ben)

On May 31, 2012, at 4:46 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

[...]

>> 
>> I don't think the definition needs to describe the entire process. could we just say "name of the peer", perhaps with a disclaimer that that the meaning of "name" is as described by the protocol?
> 
> So, something like:
> 
> 
> 	"Name Based Authentication: An authentication method in which an 
> 	endpoint receives an X.509 certificate from its peer as part of the 
> 	TLS authentication. The endpoint validates that a chain of issuers exists 
> 	from the certificate to a trusted certification authority, and that the 
> 	certificate contains the name (as indicated in SIP/SDP) of the 
> 	peer."
> 
> 

Works for me.


> ---------------------

[...]

>> There are situations described in section 4 where an endpoint can attempt to use CEMA even if the other party did not 
>> indicate support. Do we assume the middlebox is also going to try to figure out those cases, or is it purely going to look for the
>> CEMA tag? If the second,  does it require both parties to include it?
> 
> Ok, now I understand :)
> 
> The Middlebox does not need to be aware of different cases. It only looks for the CEMA tag in the offer.
> 
> Then, if the answerer does not support CEMA, and CEMA cannot be used (based on the criteria in section 4.2), the offerer will send a new offer, without the CEMA tag.

Okay.