RE: [Cfrg] Request For Opinions

[jsjoberg@toplayer.com]

Yes, that is what is meant.  I may have mis-used the term "authentication",
let me know if I did.

Thanks,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 12:17 PM
To: jsjoberg@toplayer.com
Cc: cfrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Request For Opinions 


In message <F6242D340921D5118D1E00508BB9837A0188BF77@tlnmail1.toplayer.com>,
js
joberg@toplayer.com writes:
>Hey all,
>
>I'm in an ETSI working group and we are trying to find a way to provide
>integrity checks along with non-repudiation on a theoretically infinite
>amount of data delivered over a network at 10's to 100's Mbps.

Let me clarify something, since the phrase "non-repudiation" is often
misused.  Without going into technical definitions, the right meaning is
"A wants to prove to a third party -- the judge -- that B sent certain 
packets, and in particular that A cannot have forged them".  Is that 
what you mean?

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
Cfrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg