Subject: [Sip] draft-gurbani-sip-domain-certs

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 18:25:22 -0800

There some parts of the draft I like but some parts that seem strange  
to me ...

We agree there are cases where we connect to a conical name for the  
domain and clearly this name will need to be in the cert. In some  
cases, a proxy may choose to put a different name in a record route,  
in that case we will need that name in the cert as well. Because of  
this clients need to be able to receive certs with one or more names.

A proxy needs to have a cert with the names it uses - no more, no  
less. We should not assume that a building a proxy farm necessarily  
involves record routes names that are different that the domain name  
- some do - some don't.

The trying to say if the name is URI type vs DNS type in seems  
totally orthogonal from anything this draft is trying to accomplish.  
For the stuff here, who cares, seems like either works.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip