Re: [sasl] GS2 -19

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, January 08, 2010 02:08:14 PM +0100 Simon Josefsson 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> All,
>
> Below is the announcement of GS2 -19.  -19 attempts to address all
> concerns raised during IETF last call, including the GenArt and SecDir
> comments.
>
> To make it easy for you to help me catch any mistakes or omissions, here
> are the links Pasi provided with comments:
>
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2573/
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg04791.html
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg01242.html
>
> The diff between -18 (which was posted during the IETF week with some
> fixes) and -19 is available from:
>
> http://josefsson.org/sasl-gs2/draft-ietf-sasl-gs2-19-from-8.diff.html
>
> Diff between -17 (which was the document in IETF wide last call) and -18
> is available from:
>
> http://josefsson.org/sasl-gs2/draft-ietf-sasl-gs2-18-from-7.diff.html

Of course, a complete history is available at
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sasl-gs2-19>, including diffs 
between versions.

I see no serious problems in the recent revisions.  The chart describing 
how the channel bindings flag works seems like a good addition.  However, 
the last entry is confusing.  It appears to be describing the case where a 
client gives up because the server appears not to support CB and the client 
insists on it, whereas all of the other entries describe the server's 
behavior based on the received flag and whether the server supports CB.

This might be made more clear by s/because/if/ in that entry.

-- Jeff