Subject: Re: [xmpp] DNA requirements?

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:00:25 -0600

On 3/23/10 3:15 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Listening to the DNA discussion at IETF 77 (today), it occurred to me
> that a set of requirements might help in the evaluation process.  Since
> it doesn't seem very likely that a "miracle solution" will arise, it
> will come down to weighing the proposals against each other with their
> pros and cons.  In that process, it would be helpful to understand what
> kind of issues are considered "show stoppers", and which ones are
> unpleasant but can be lived with, which qualities are considered
> desirable vs. MUST have, etc.  

Probably. The problem is clear to those who care about it, but not
necessarily to others.

My take-away from the discussion in Anaheim is that we'll probably end
up using attribute certs, because any other solution that is even mildly
secure will essentially end up re-inventing attribute certs anyway.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:17:52 -0400

As much as I dislike attribute certs, this was also my impression  
coming out of Anaheim.

--Richard

On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:37:53 -0400

I do like attribute certificates it's just unfortunate they have been 
widely implemented.  I do agree with Peter's and Richard's impressions.

spt

Richard Barnes wrote:
> As much as I dislike attribute certs, this was also my impression coming 
> out of Anaheim.
> 
> --Richard
> 
>

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:39:31 -0400

r/have/haven't