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

Weijun Wang <weijun.wang@oracle.com> Thu, 05 February 2015 05:17 UTC

Return-Path: <weijun.wang@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4571A1A38 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:17:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vm5gTShqIIgD for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:17:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAF331A01AE for <kitten@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t155HH1f000837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 05:17:18 GMT
Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t155HG7W022766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 05:17:17 GMT
Received: from ubhmt112.oracle.com (ubhmt112.oracle.com [156.151.24.17]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t155HGIA026527; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 05:17:16 GMT
Received: from [192.168.10.107] (/123.122.155.79) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 21:17:16 -0800
Message-ID: <54D2FCD5.6060404@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:17:09 +0800
From: Weijun Wang <weijun.wang@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, kitten@ietf.org
References: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1501201753140.23489@multics.mit.edu> <54CE9F5B.9070808@mit.edu> <54CEE8E5.5080701@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <54CEE8E5.5080701@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/ZKKwZzDK2mEHZ6wCUsgSeZUPSzM>
Subject: Re: [kitten] WGLC for three "bis" documents: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc4402bis-00, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-01, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-00
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten/>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 05:17:20 -0000

Hi Greg

On 2/2/2015 11:03, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-01
>>
>> My only substantive note is that the InputStream/OutputStream forms of
>> initSecContext/acceptSecContext could, perhaps, already write tokens to
>> the outStream parameter before throwing an exception, instead of
>> communicating them in the exception.  If this issue has already been
>> discussed, please ignore this remark.  If not, I suspect it might be
>> easier on callers (but perhaps harder on implementations) just to
>> require that callers flush or otherwise handle content in the output
>> stream after an exception.  I do not have a strong interest in how this
>> turns out, though.
>
> 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?

Thanks
Weijun