IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: What am I waiting on for gs2?

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Mon, 28 January 2008 22:49 UTC

Return-path: <owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJcnX-0006fT-Nu for sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:49:51 -0500
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJcnW-0008Ce-85 for sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:49:51 -0500
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m0SMWKrN001701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:32:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id m0SMWKBx001700; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:32:20 -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 chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (CHOKECHERRY.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.185.41]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m0SMWGLa001684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-sasl@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:32:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhutz@cmu.edu)
Received: from SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU (SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.209.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0SMW030008185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:32:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:32:00 -0500
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
cc: ietf-sasl@imc.org, jhutz@cmu.edu
Subject: Re: What am I waiting on for gs2?
Message-ID: <B53945E6A056DF72340F5D95@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <87hcidia0t.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
References: <tslir3njs54.fsf@mit.edu> <87tzn6lcw9.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <tslprxufnqk.fsf@mit.edu> <tslk5o04vw3.fsf@mit.edu> <87bq8ltq45.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <tsld4t1iero.fsf@mit.edu> <87hcidia0t.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370

--On Thursday, December 20, 2007 05:52:18 PM +0100 Simon Josefsson 
<simon@josefsson.org> wrote:

> I support the change below.  Others?

I support the addition of a security layer bit to indicate channel binding 
negotiation failed, as described in the change in question.

However, the diff you provided also makes a second change, whose effect is 
to number bits with bit '0' being the least-significant bit rather than the 
most-significant bit, as is the convention used in the RFC Series.  Please 
see ID-Checklist section 2.1 item 9, and draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt 
section 3.4.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email