Subj : Two changes to BinkP inquiry...
To : Joachim Probst
From : Ozz Nixon
Date : Fri Mar 06 2020 10:35 pm
>Nice idea, like that part, but I do not see the necessaty of a protocol
>change. FTS does not request that you show all addresses you have. It just
>requests that the originating side does not wait for any response before
>sending M_PWD and that for password checking all presented addresses (by the
>originating side, no other makes sense) are using the same password, if any.
>
>The originating side could just present the networks it wants to present
>(hiding akas is already sugested in the FTS for the purpose of working with
>different passwords on different akas). If the answering side only presents
>'public' akas and akas fitting to those presented by the originating side, I
>do not see any violence of the current binkp protocol and can see no harm to
>the network, too. Maybe I am overlooking something?
* Okay, it may not be a protocol improvement ~ however, as you see, it
introduces a little layer of security ~ which they want to achieve.
However, if it was mentioned in the specification that you do not have
to present all of your addresses (to me AKAs is wrong wording) you
could simply reply wiht the matching zones ~ so M_PWD can proceed as
planned. And a snoopy nose does not see, oh, he's a member of 666
network.
Now you mention matching passwords ~ I will ask a OPT MPWD question.
