Re: Moving forward on the identity discussion (was: Interim meeting in Malta)

Dean,

(Moving back to the SIP list, which accidentally got dropped from cc list a few postings ago).

Yes, I was wondering whether SAML would fit in here somehow. 

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 10 November 2008 17:54
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: Dan York; Victor Pascual Ávila; Dan Wing; DRAGE, Keith 
> (Keith); Henry Sinnreich; Jiri Kuthan; Alan Johnston; Juha 
> Heinanen; [email protected]; dale.worley; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Moving forward on the identity discussion 
> (was: Interim meeting in Malta)
> 
> 
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:18 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> 
> > Dan,
> >
> > The present RFC 4474 assumes that the Authentication Service is  
> > collocated with a proxy on the SIP signalling path. The way I view  
> > the scenario you describe below is that the Authentication Service  
> > is not on the signalling path, and therefore it would seem to  
> > require a protocol between a proxy and an Authentication 
> Service in  
> > order that the proxy can obtain the necessary signature. I 
> would see  
> > that as a separate work item, which could be pursued later 
> (after we  
> > have solved the basic RFC 4474 problems.
> >
> 
> 4474 allows the auth server to be on-path or of, though on is  
> simplest. It even allows the auth server to be invoked from the UAC  
> via some unspecified protocol, such as that other SAML draft that is  
> kicking around.
> 
> > By the way, any particular reason why this discussion moved 
> off-list?
> >
> 
> Paranoia?
> 
> --
> Dean
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip