Re: [CHANNEL-BINDING] Re: draft-ietf-sasl-gs2 AD review comments

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@Sun.COM> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:55:52AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>     Nicolas> I believe the text of the I-D is clear on the above.
>>     Nicolas> Thus your protocol issues are taken care of.
>> 
>> Well, my reading of the ID is that the protocol needs two slots--one
>> for a prefix and one for a channel binding octec string.  Simon is
>> arguing that we only want to have one slot.
>> I'm fine with that if we want to make that change.
>
> I don't agree.  The I-D is clear on channel bindings being a single
> octet string.  The prefix is a US-ASCII string prefixed to the raw
> channel binding octet string.  After the prefix is added you still have
> a single octet string.

Right.  However, I think the document is unclear that the channel
binding name and the unique prefix must be the same string.  The only
reason I am fairly certain that they are actually intended to be the
same has been this discussion, not the document.

> Simon's issue, I thought, was about API slots.

No, it wasn't about APIs, it was about what is sent in the
"channel_binding_data" field over the wire.  If the current text in GS2
is not sufficient to build interoperable implementations, I'd appreciate
suggestions on what it has to say.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
CHANNEL-BINDING mailing list
CHANNEL-BINDING@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/channel-binding