| Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Defintiion | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Bernard Aboba (bernard_aboba |
|
| Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:16:22 -0700 (PDT) | |
Yoshi Ohba said:
How about:
Question: What does "valid" mean here? Do we mean "securely agreed upon"?
How about this:
"A secure mechanism for ensuring that a subset of the parameters transmitted by the
authenticator (such as authenticator identifiers and properties) are agreed upon by
the EAP peer and server. It is expected that the parameters are also securel agreed
upon by the EAP peer and authenticator via the lower layer if the authenticator
advertised the parameters."
How about:
"It is expected that the parameters are also agreed upon by the peer and authenticator via the lower layer if the authenticator is the valid entity that advertised the parameters."
Question: What does "valid" mean here? Do we mean "securely agreed upon"?
How about this:
"A secure mechanism for ensuring that a subset of the parameters transmitted by the
authenticator (such as authenticator identifiers and properties) are agreed upon by
the EAP peer and server. It is expected that the parameters are also securel agreed
upon by the EAP peer and authenticator via the lower layer if the authenticator
advertised the parameters."
-
Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Defintiion Bernard Aboba, June 21 2006
- Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Defintiion Yoshihiro Ohba, June 21 2006
- Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 357: Channel Binding Defintiion Jari Arkko, June 24 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.