Re: [sasl] Mechanism Negotiation and Channel Binding with SCRAM

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Simon Josefsson wrote:

>Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]> writes:
>  
>
>>On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:10:49AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I see no real change.  I think we want to s/MUST select/selects/ to go
>>>>from normative to declarative language.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>That seems simpler.
>>>      
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Seems good to me, although it needs to be adapted to GS2 as well.
>>>
>>>The question remains if we want to make this change now or not.  Both
>>>SCRAM and GS2 needs to be updated.  Your proposed change wouldn't be the
>>>most minimal fix, but maybe clarity is better served by rewriting these
>>>paragraphs.
>>>      
>>>
>>Does anyone else have an opinion on this?  I'd be happy doing: a)
>>nothing, b) changing a couple of normative MUSTs into declaratives, c)
>>re-writing some of these as I proposed.
>>    
>>
>I kind of prefer b) and the main reason is to minimize the amount of
>changes we do at this late time.
>
>I believe that if we don't change this now, clients without channel
>binding support will violate the first MUST in practice.  This will
>likely cause problems when moving SCRAM from Proposed to Draft (if that
>happens...).
>
I can be easily confused by declarative language, so I would prefer c). 
But I can live with b).