[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Simple+TLS as mandatory-to-implement (RE: Issues with current authmeth draft.)

To: Mark Ennis <mark.ennis@adacel.com>
Subject: Re: Simple+TLS as mandatory-to-implement (RE: Issues with current authmeth draft.)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 06:53:29 -0700
Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <3EC1C98F.1040806@adacel.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030513074355.029edd18@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030512195717.02923988@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030512195717.02923988@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030513074355.029edd18@127.0.0.1>

At 09:43 PM 5/13/2003, Mark Ennis wrote:
>With regards to an alternative mandatory-to-implement authentication mechanism which is more secure than using cleartext passwords, I would like to see one which allows for distinguished names as one form of the authentication identity, but would be reluctant to support mandatory implementation of startTLS extended operation to achieve this if it can be avoided.

Does your desire to avoiding StartTLS outweigh your desire for
credentials with LDAPDNs?  Or does your desire for credentials
with LDAPDNs outweigh your desire to avoid StartTLS?

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simple+TLS as mandatory-to-implement (RE: Issues with current authmeth draft.)
  - From: Mark Ennis <mark.ennis@adacel.com>

References:
- Re: Simple+TLS as mandatory-to-implement (RE: Issues with current authmeth draft.)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Simple+TLS as mandatory-to-implement (RE: Issues with current authmeth draft.)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: Simple+TLS as mandatory-to-implement (RE: Issues with current authmeth draft.)
  - From: Mark Ennis <mark.ennis@adacel.com>

Prev by Date: New Version of ASN.1
Next by Date: Re: Simple+TLS as mandatory-to-implement (RE: Issues with current authmeth draft.)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread