Subject: Re: [MSEC] GSAKMP issue 11: policy token payload digital signature

From: Uri Meth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:25:26 -0400

This is correct, this sentance makes an implication that we did not
desire to convey.  We suggest that this sentance be removed.
To clarify this section, we suggest the rewording of the section as
follows:

The Policy Token Payload contains authenticatable group specific 
information that describes the group security relevant behaviors, 
access control parameters, and security mechanisms.  Figure 5 shows ...

Beyond this, we don't wish to levy any more specific requirements from
GSAKMP on the Policy Token.

UM

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:25:35AM -0400, George Gross wrote:
> 2 of 4 e-mails that are being resent...
> 
> GSAKMP issue 11
> 
> Section and relevant text passage:
> 
> 6.3 Policy Token Payload
> 
> The text that says "This information may contain a digital signature(s) to
> prove authority and integrity of the information."
> 
> Comment/issue description:
> 
> The word "may" probably was intended to be "MUST"
> 
> Suggested issue resolution:
> 
> s/may/MUST/
> 
> If you really did mean to say "may", then explain when that is allowed.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> msec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

-- 
Uri Meth                            (410) 872 - 1515 x233 (voice)
SPARTA, Inc.                        (410) 872 - 8079      (fax)
7075 Samuel Morse Drive             [email-masked]
Columbia, MD 21046

_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec