RE: [XCON] CPCP Issue 28: <pin> and <password>

[hisham.khartabil at nokia.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
> Sent: 13.August.2004 17:41
> To: Khartabil Hisham (Nokia-TP-MSW/Helsinki)
> Cc: xcon at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [XCON] CPCP Issue 28: <pin> and <password>
> 
> 
> Hisham - comments inline.
> 
> 	Paul
> 
> hisham.khartabil at nokia.com wrote:
> > Users who are using a PSTN phone to join a conference can 
> authenticate using a PIN (traditional way). We use the <pin> 
> condition for this.
> > 
> > Users who are aware of the conference password can join, 
> irrespective of their identity. So anyone who knows the 
> password was join. We use the <password> condition for this.
> > 
> > There was a huge confusion about the useability of these 2 
> conditions. A question was raised on how a focus would react 
> if the password was changed for the conference. Another was 
> raised on what does it mean for a user to be authenticated 
> and then requiring them to enter a password?
> > 
> > There were also comments that a conference policy should 
> not assign passwords. Those are assigned out of band. The 
> conference policy would then just require the password.
> > 
> > There was no consensus on any of these issues. Here is a 
> concrete proposal:
> 
> I seem to recall that there was a recognition that 
> pins/passwords can be 
> used in two ways:
> 
> - they may be used as a means of authenticating. In this case the pin
>    or password is specific to an identity that must also be provided
> 
> - they may be used as a shared secret for a conference, where 
> possession
>    grants admission to the conference regardless of identity.
> 
> The first form is irrelevant to CPCP, since its use would 
> simply provide 
> the identity that is used by CPCP for authorization. It is the second 
> usage that needs to be discussed in CPCP.
> 
> > - using password and pin with <id> does not make sense 
> since <id> indicates that a user is authenticated so no need 
> to authenticate that user again.
> 
> I don't think the above is true. It is quite possible to be 
> calling from 
> a device that authenticates, but not as a user authorized to 
> join. For 
> instance this is likely to be the case for users calling from 
> the PSTN - 
> the call is likely to have the identity of the calling 
> device: tel:nnn.
> 
> So, I think you have multiple ways to get in:
> - you are authorized by your identity
> - you are authorized by the possession of a secret

Agreed. I was specifically referring to password, not PIN.

> 
> > - passwords and pins are set out of band
> > - allow rules that indicate that if an unauthenticated user 
> tries to join a conference, then he needs to enter a pin or password.
> 
> Or a user that is authenticated but neither authorized nor 
> rejected on 
> the basis of that authentication.

If there is no rule put in place to reject the user, then he is automatically authorised to join (or was it automatically rejected? Can someone remind me of how common-policy handles lack of rules?) 

Regards,
Hisham

> 
> > - change pin to only be digits
> > - if a password or pin is changed for a certain conference, 
> users who used that pin or password are not booted out.
> > 
> > Any comments?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hisham
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > XCON mailing list
> > XCON at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon