Re: [Isms] pre11 comments

["David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson at comcast.net>]

Jeffrey Hutzelman writes...

> I'm inclined to say that distinguishing between secure transports
> in a useful way is something that TSM must handle...

If so, then I think it is incumbent upon us to describe the utility
obtained.

I think we've dismissed the issues of differing protocols, cipher-suites,
and so forth, and being irrelevant to the interests of TSM, e.g. "secure" is
always "secure enough".  So, that leaves us with the issue of multiple
authentication mechanisms that might involve multiple user namespaces.  Are
there other issues we are attempting to deal with?  Or are we also adding
the "tag" as a "hook" to deal with possible differences that someone decides
are important in the future?

> (3) specify a standard algorithm for transforming a transport-specific
> ID into a securityName and the reverse, without resorting to a mapping
> table.

Wes also suggested that this mechanism me capable of being disabled, in
those deployments where no distinction is necessary or desirable.


_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms