IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Poll: pure SCRAM versa SCRAM-as-GS2

Love Hörnquist Åstrand <lha@kth.se> Thu, 05 February 2009 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC4E3A69DD for <ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:29:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GNWHANPU26r6 for <ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD10D3A69C1 for <sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:29:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n15NPVTu003200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:25:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n15NPVlj003199; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:25:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n15NPKOR003192 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-sasl@imc.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:25:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from lha@kth.se)
Received: from relay10.apple.com (relay10.apple.com [17.128.113.47]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D009539FC70 for <ietf-sasl@imc.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay10.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay10.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 5CCF52805A for <ietf-sasl@imc.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:25:20 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1180712f-a6165bb0000012d3-30-498b756053e0
Received: from elliott.apple.com (elliott.apple.com [17.151.62.13]) by relay10.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 4C34828051 for <ietf-sasl@imc.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:25:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Received: from nutcracker.apple.com (nutcracker.apple.com [17.202.45.101]) by elliott.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KEM00AJM9286R70@elliott.apple.com> for ietf-sasl@imc.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Poll: pure SCRAM versa SCRAM-as-GS2
From: Love Hörnquist Åstrand <lha@kth.se>
Message-id: <75FD8ADD-BB12-4D1A-AFBD-96A4A8E29774@kth.se>
In-reply-to: <498B569C.7070400@isode.com>
Cc: SASL WG <ietf-sasl@imc.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:25:19 -0800
References: <498B569C.7070400@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1042)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Sender: owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-sasl/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-sasl.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-sasl-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

5 feb 2009 kl. 13:14 skrev Alexey Melnikov:

>
> Folks,
> I would like to solicit feedback from people regarding the choice
> between 2 SCRAM versions:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-newman-auth-scram-08.txt
> and
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-newman-auth-scram-gs2-00.txt
>
> You can use the following URL to see changes between them:
> http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-newman-auth-scram-08.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-newman-auth-scram-gs2-00.txt
>
> Please send your opinion on which version you prefer (and a short
> explanation of why) to the mailing list, or say if you need more
> information.

I prefer having SCRAM as a GSS-API mech since if SCRAM was a SASL mech  
we would have to create a GSS-API mech for those protocols that  
doesn't do SASL but only GSS-API.

SASL implementors (or should I say SA implementors) can avoid  the SL  
layer if they want to (as commonly done today), that would bring the  
complexity down for them.

Love

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email