>>>>> <gareth.richards@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Why should we require that alg-ids be registered URIs?
>>
>> That's not my concern - the existing first paragraph of the IANA
>> considerations section in the draft requires IANA registration
>> (or at least tries to) by pointing to the PSKC registry. My
>> concern is that if this is going to be done, it needs to be done
>> right (duh!), and the current text is insufficient. Please take
>> the issue of whether to use IANA for this purpose up with Gareth
>> and the WG.
>>
>> > I have no problem with the IETF registering its algorithms
>> there, or us > encouraging people to register them there, but
>> it's a URI. What purpose > is served by forcing registration?
>>
>> Hmm - more than one URI for the same algorithm might cause
>> interoperability problems.
>>
g>Some form of identifier will be required for the otp-algID in the PA-OTP-CHALLENGE and the PA-OTP-REQUEST and from what I remember about when this was first discussed, it was agreed that it would make sense to use the registry of identifiers already being established for PSKC rather than produce a duplicate one. My assumption was that a registry would be required to ensure that the URIs were unique.
I don't really care so just fix the current text to resolve David's
concern. My point was simply that whatever spec tells you how to use
some algorithm with Kerberos can provide a unique URI and I'm
unconvinced that it matters where that URI is drawn so long as everyone
agrees on the URI. Having a registry for everything the IETF does is
fine; reusing an existing registry is better. Constraining what
non-IETF people do seems kind of silly but they will not listen to us
anyway, so no harm is done.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf