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

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

> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 03:59:31PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>     Simon> I thought that channel binding data had to contain a unique
>>     Simon> prefix which would appears to solve that problem, without
>>     Simon> having to require that protocols encode the channel binding
>>     Simon> type too.  If my assumption is correct, it would be useful
>>     Simon> to clarify this in d-w-on-channel-binding.  No change in
>>     Simon> GS2 seems necessary.  Nico?
>> 
>> I thought it was the responsibility of the application|framework to
>> add the unique prefix.  The channel binding base draft provides a
>> registry for this prefix, but I thought that the channel binding
>> description did not include this prefix and left it up to the
>> application.  If the channel binding format must include the prefix
>> then I think we need to change the channel binding base draft.
>
> Sam is correct.  In any case, I don't think the channel providing the
> bindings should be providing the prefix.

Could you suggest some text that would be appropriate in GS2 section 5?

It would help if on-channel-binding discussed its interface to
authentication protocols.  For example, what should GS2 say about
channel bindings that need confidentiality protection?  Can GS2 use such
a channel binding at all?

/Simon

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