Subject: RE: [Isms] Meeting milestones

From: "Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:23:36 -0400

Well...

IMHO the best _architecture_ approach from the already-proposed ones is
SBSM. However _because_ of all the supported features wrt. Different
authentication mechanisms it needs a careful security review, which is
almost impossible to do.

Having said that - I'm strongly opposed to OOBK, support Encapsulated
and In-band. [The difference between In-band and Encapsulated tends to
get muddy]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Isms] Meeting milestones

Hi, folks.  We have two days in which to come to a decision on what
architecture to use.

I hope the discussion this Friday and Saturday is productive.  I think
our discussion over the last month has been very useful, but I am
concerned we are not at a consensus yet.

--Sam

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

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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:50:50 -0400

>>>>> "Blumenthal," == Blumenthal, Uri <[email-masked]> writes:

    Blumenthal,> Well...  IMHO the best _architecture_ approach from
    Blumenthal,> the already-proposed ones is SBSM. However _because_
    Blumenthal,> of all the supported features wrt. Different
    Blumenthal,> authentication mechanisms it needs a careful security
    Blumenthal,> review, which is almost impossible to do.

SBSM is a protocol, not an architecture.  The architecture is IBK.