Re: [Isms] pre11 comments

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 02:07:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> [...] In order to simplify this somewhat and also address what I believe 
> is Wes's concern (which has nothing to do with securityLevel), I'd like 
> to propose a strawman.  Specifically, I propose that for TSM, the 
> securityName always take the form "TM:name", where TM is a token 
> indicating the secure transport model in use and name is a 
> transport-specific ID.  Obviously we'd need an IANA registry of possible 
> values for the TM token, and a new value would need to be allocated for 
> each token.

Speaking as technical contributor...

Assuming the TM allows operators to configure "name" mappings. Isn't
that sufficient? Do we really have to enforce a specific mapping or
are we not better served by simply discussing the issue in the
documents and suggesting certain configurations options addressing the
issue?

For some secure transports (e.g. TLS and DTLS), there might be valid
reasons to not make a difference and so I prefer a clear separation of
mechanism and policy here.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms