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]>]

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