IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Wed, 10 October 2007 15:06 UTC

Return-path: <channel-binding-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ifd8c-0001bm-A9; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:18 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ifd8b-0001bb-Hm for channel-binding@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:17 -0400
Received: from minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.185.161]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ifd8b-0007ay-8i for channel-binding@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:17 -0400
Received: from minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu id aa08076; 10 Oct 2007 11:05 EDT
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:05:34 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
X-X-Sender: <jhutz@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [CHANNEL-BINDING] Re: draft-ietf-sasl-gs2 AD review comments
In-Reply-To: <tslmyurnhmv.fsf@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0710101102530.5381-100000@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: channel-binding@ietf.org, ietf-sasl@imc.org
X-BeenThere: channel-binding@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of channel binding IANA registry requests and specifications <channel-binding.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/channel-binding>, <mailto:channel-binding-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/channel-binding>
List-Post: <mailto:channel-binding@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:channel-binding-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/channel-binding>, <mailto:channel-binding-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: channel-binding-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Sam Hartman wrote:

> Well, if I have a prefix tls and a prefix t with a channel binding
> starting ls I may have a problem.

Right; that's why you need an unambiguous separator if they're going to go
in the same slot.

> 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 think Jeff is arguing for the same.  I think you ande I don't care
> much.

I don't much care; I'm fine with requiring two separate slots.  As far as
I'm concerned, the document as it stands right now is not sufficiently
clear; it could be interpreted in either way.  As evidence of this I offer
the existance of the present discussion.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email