in
> RFC7250.
Just because I had to look it up...
4279 - Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security
7250 - Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer Security
I thought perhaps it was some more specific mechanism...
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software
Ludwig Seitz wrote:
> On 02/04/2016 03:31 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Ludwig Seitz wrote: > Assuming we are using (D)TLS to
>> secure the connection between C and RS, > assuming further that we are
>> using proof-of-possession toke
Doesn't that go against all of the authentication security
precepts that Google and others have been telling us?
(*) - yes there are limited abilities to do this within gmail. But, it
does not extend throughout the ecosystem.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
cturer could have a CA trust anchor, and #1 and #2 might be
provided via subordinate CAs, and only #3 needs to be transfered.
(#1 is an EE certificate)
draft-richardson-anima-masa-considerations actually discusses some of the
options here.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consult
containing end
points with semantics that we control/define.
We already have /.well-known/brski, with IANA rules, so we should do it
there.
I'm sorry if this sounded like crying wolf :-)
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, O
o be an RFC; many
wiki have the ability to reference a term at a specific date.
ps: thank you for championing this, it's way overdue.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
tion gets a higher
status.
In general, I think about the many (often vastly different) definitions that
one can see in, for instance, the urban dictionary (.com).
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
