Re: draft-dotson-sip-mutual-auth
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Nov 25, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Sumanth Channabasappa wrote: > Scott, > > I had additional offline discussions with Ekr and Cullen last week. > Ekr > indicated that the proposed I-D does not align with the SIP security > model (UE <=> next-hop authentication; no need for UE <=> > <authentication beyond next hop>). > Huh? We have long held that there may be multiple proxies (possibly in different domains) challenging a given request. This has been a hallmark of scenarios such as the "hotel proxy" that doesn't do authentication or act as a an identity server but that does do local firewall control. So somebody is confused about something. Who knows, might be me, occasionally I wake up in a different time-space continuum, but AFAIK, we've always intended to support authentication more than one hop away. In fact, I recall design discussions with Pingtel and 3Com people about that as far back as 1999. Robert Sparks had a lot to say about it, IIRC. -- 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