Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] anonymityh ID comments VI

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:39:33 -0400

--On Friday, August 22, 2008 04:52:08 PM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I think the last sentence is highly relevant to this paragraph.
>
> Maybe.

Looking at it again, I agree with you.

>
>>
>>> You need to provide enough context and
>>> be at least somewhat consistent with the rest of the document (for
>>> example(*), instead of "a service that is authenticated by this
>>> mechanism" you could say "a service to which an anonymous ticket is
>>> presented", and instead of "the party" you could say "the client").
>>
>> I personally feel the verbiage I edited is better. This document talks
>> about how anonymous clients authenticate the server, not just merely
>> presenting. The server has to be able to decrypt the service ticket.
>
> Well, there might be a better word than "present"; that was just an
> example, after all.  But I worry a little about the use of the word
> "mechanism".

I think the text you have in -09 satisfies my concern about the use of the 
word "mechanism".  I still haven't heard back from Philip about whether the 
added text addresses his original concern.  For convenience, I'm copying 
that text below in its present form.  If I don't hear back from Philip by 
Sep 26, I will consider this issue resolved by the new text.

The new sentence under discussion is this one:

        A service that is authenticated by the anonymous principals
        may be able to infer the identity of the client by examining
        and linking quasi-static protocol information such as the IP
        address from which a request is received.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg