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

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:

    Simon> Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> writes:
    >> The draft looks quite good, but there are a few things that
    >> need to be resolved before I can last call it.

    Simon> Thanks for your review!

Your proposed fixes look good except for the following:
    >> It also appears to violate the requirement that the name of the
    >> channel type be used in the channel binding data.

    Simon> I believe you are referring to this requirement:

    Simon>       * The name of the type of channel binding MUST be
    Simon> used by the application and/or authentication protocol to
    Simon> avoid ambiguity about which of several possible types of
    Simon> channels is being bound.  If nested instances of the same
    Simon> type of channel are available then the innermost channel
    Simon> MUST be used.

    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.

Comments?

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