Re: [kitten] WGLC for three "bis" documents: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc4402bis-00, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-01, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-00

[Weijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

On 2/5/2015 15:17, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 12:17 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> On 2/2/2015 11:03, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-01
>>>>
>>> The main reason I preferred the current design is to be consistent with
>>> the byte array forms of the methods, which gives the caller the chance
>>> to determine whether the error token should be sent or not.
>>
>> Are you OK with this reason?
>
> As I said, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'm not sure
> why it would be important or useful to give the caller a chance to
> decline to send an error token.

The current implementation does not send the error token (This is not 
precisely specified although the doc does mention that a token generated 
by initSecContext/acceptSecContext is meant to be consumed by 
acceptSecContext/initSecContext by the peer). Either a caller does not 
want to send the token at all, or one should have already written extra 
code to generate that token and send it.

If we now silently send the token, it will be a big behavior change and 
a surprise for everyone.

Thanks
Weijun