Subject: Re: [Isms] Clarifications about EUSM

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:00:32 -0800

>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:35:04 -0500, "Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]> said:

Uri> We are not modifying USM - we're providing a "wrapper" for a
Uri> security model.

"We" being the people that don't want to right?  It sounds like you're
stating a requirement that USM must be not be changed, which isn't a
conclusion the WG has come to yet.

Uri> Like David H. said - we don't hear complaints that USM isn't secure
Uri> enough (except from you, and maybe Wes).

Or the 37/149 people that responded to my survey.

However, don't read into this that I think it's a requirement that we
must improve on the situation.  It would be a nice to have if we can
and don't have to sacrifice other more important things.  I suspect
that we can without sacrificing the more important goal of external
authentication integration.  Whether we choose too or not has yet to
be decided by the WG yet.  But please don't state that a conclusion
has been made yet by the WG, because it hasn't.  It's hopefully really
close, but I don't believe the chairs have declared consensus one way
or another yet.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms