Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sacred-framework-01.txt

From: "Andrew Wooster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:40:34 -0700

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is it specified in
draft-ietf-sacred-framework-01 (section 2.3) that:

"Clients are not precluded from exchanging credentials directly
   with a credential store (or any other server of it's choosing)."

This corresponds to protocol 3 in the chart given:

                     +--------+           +------------+
                     | Client +-----------| Credential |
                     +--------+     1     |   Server   |
                          \               +-----+------+
                           \                    |
                            \                   | 2
                             \                  |
                              \    3      +-----+------+
                               -----------| Credential |
                                          |  Store(s)  |
                                          +------------+

I believe this chart was designed by Stephen Farrell and given in 
http://www.imc.org/ietf-sacred/mail-archive/msg00005.html. 

I'm not entirely certain where protocols 2 and 3 fit in with the rest
of sacred. Section 2.3 appears to be the only section to mention them.

Also, because the frameworks document specifies (as does the requirements
document) that sacred support multiple authentication schemes, the 
suggestions for using LDAP/SSL over protocol 3 above don't seem 
relevant.

So, my basic questions are: Why are 2 and 3 described in the frameworks
draft? Is there an inherent need to cover an additional transfer
mechanism over protocol 3 that wouldn't be better served by encapsulating
credential transfer in protocol 1? If the credential server wishes to
retrieve and store credentials from some arbitrary credential store using
an implementation-specific protocol, should sacred care?

Thanks,

-Andrew Wooster
[email-masked]
http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~awooster

---

From: Dale Gustafson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:52:46 -0500

Hi Andrew,

Comments inline.

Best Regards,

Dale Gustafson

> This corresponds to protocol 3 in the chart given:

SACRED is protocol 1.  The picture is shown to explain the larger context in
which 1 is operating.  Also to note that 2 and 3 are out of scope but related to
1.

> an implementation-specific protocol, should sacred care?

Probably not.

Several people have, at one time or another, expressed interest in / would like
to ensure that clients can update (upload) secured credentials directly to a
credential store.  Others have indicated there may be a need to download
credentials directly from the credential store.  The comment above is merely to
acknowledge that direct exchanges with a credential store are also possible.