Re: [kitten] TLS export for channel binding

[Sam Whited <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 7, 2020, at 12:04, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> (Chair/obnoxious process hat on) I think it would be best to have a
> formalized call for adoption in kitten - that's a separate email with
> "call for adoption" and the thing to adopt in the subject.  What I've
> observed so far is interest in the document existing (and willingness
> to work on it), but not specifically in kitten.  We'll let that simmer
> about a week, and then if there's consensus, we can adopt.

Thanks for your help. Is that an email I should send when I figure out
whether this belongs in TLS or KITTEN, or should I ask someone else to
issue the call, perhaps the chair?

Today I've been thinking that this really depends on whether the draft
is SCRAM specific or not. If it is, this might be a better place to take
on the work, if not, the TLS WG might be better. Although if it's not
SCRAM specific it probably doesn't matter where it lives because the I-D
becomes almost trivial, it's just instructions for IANA to register two
labels in a registry so that the existing TLS channel binding mechanism
can be used from SASL.

—Sam

-- 
Sam Whited