I got halfway through my answer to Adam, and discovered Dean
had got
there first.
Dean has answered all the technical issues, although
feedback would be
useful from the large number of people that got involved in
the final
delivery of RFC 3261 on how Proxy-Authentication-Info was
omitted at the
time that the Authentication-Info header was added (we've
asked the key
people who supposedly did this section and not got any
input).
That leads me only to add:
The SIP WG does it, whether it is an bugfix or not, so the
progression
will not be so different, one way or the other. (In security
issues SIP
does both the requirements and the protocol).
But the floor is open on all these to indicate:
- progress rapidly
- reject
- more discussion needed
- treat as a normal extension
And we would welcome such input to the list - if time
permits in
Vancouver we will also be asking this at the end of one of
the sessions.
Regards
Keith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:dean.willis softarmor.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:06 AM
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: sipietf.org List; Cullen Jennings; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Mutual Auth: Enhancement, not
correction
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> >> *
> > *Why are we considering
draft-dotson-sip-mutual-auth for
> inclusion in
> > the essential corrections process? Don't get me
wrong --
> the mechanism
> > described in the document seems like a useful
_extension_
> to SIP, but
> > it's hardly correcting something that's broken. I
think things will
> > get very confusing if we start couching
_enhancements_ in terms of
> > deltas to RFC 3261.
> >
>
> the argument goes that this was a bug in RFC 3261:
>
> RFC 2543 had this to say about the Authentication-Info
headers:
>
> 14.3 Digest Authentication
>
> The rules for digest authentication follow those
defined in [36],
> with "HTTP 1.1" replaced by
"SIP/2.0" in addition to the following
> differences:
> 4. The Authentication-Info and
Proxy-Authentication-Info
> fields are not used in SIP.
>
> But by the time we did RFC 3261, we had decided that
mutual
> authentication using digest was important, so we
added:
>
> 20.6 Authentication-Info
>
> The Authentication-Info header field provides for
mutual
> authentication with HTTP Digest. A UAS MAY include
this
> header field
> in a 2xx response to a request that was
successfully authenticated
> using digest based on the Authorization header
field.
>
> Syntax and semantics follow those specified in RFC
2617 [17].
>
> Example:
>
> Authentication-Info:
nextnonce="47364c23432d2e131a5fb210812c"
>
> But for some currently unknown reason, we forgot to add
the
> also- important Proxy-Authentication-Info header back
in.
>
> Now, is that a bug in the spec that needs correction,
or is
> it an enhancement? Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> --
> Dean
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
|
