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

On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:39 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> Actually, we noted that the suggested text does not take RFC 6072 into consideration. So, what about:
> 
> 	"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 verifies that the identity associated 
> 	with the certificate corresponds to that of the peer (as indicated in SIP/SDP) 
> 	and that the binding of the identity to the public key was done by a party which the
> 	endpoint trusts. This definition includes both traditional certificates issued by a 
> 	well-known certification authority as well as self-signed certificates published via 
> 	a SIP Certificate Management Service [RFC6072] and other similar mechanisms."

Either version works for me.

Thanks!

Ben.