Re: [kitten] On SASL's authzid

Once this is published, Google will be making changes in order to conform
to the RFC.  This should require two specific changes:

   - Support for the appropriate mechanism name
   - Update to use (whatever user= becomes)

In other words, we will use whatever authzid attribute name you guys decide
on - it doesn't have to be "user=" just because we said so.  If you'd
prefer to name it something else, go for it - don't stick with "user=" for
Google interop.

-R

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I was being more vague because you (?) mentioned the renaming stuff.  I'm
> > happy to use that text.
>
> Ah, I thought you were being vague because you didn't want to REQUIRE
> the duplication.
>
> I would prefer to REQUIRE that the authzid go in the GS2 a= and in the
> user=.  That gets us both: interop with Google and interop with GS2.
>
> (But I can bend on this because I'm intent on adding an authzid option
> to GSS (as a name attribute) so that in the end a GS2 implementation
> that supported that option could live with just the user= bit.)
>
> Nico
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> Kitten@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
>