IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Tue, 02 March 2010 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jhutz@cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: sasl@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sasl@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0755328C627 for <sasl@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 0lsrLVqI34eb for <sasl@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8C328C0E3 for <sasl@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LYSITHEA.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU (LYSITHEA.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.172.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o220OZeH018191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:24:35 -0500
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
Message-ID: <332BC4C61AD7547FF7369EFD@lysithea.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <24527_1267485995_o21NQY97007131_20100301231900.GO1061@Sun.COM>
References: <18CD98AA-6737-41FF-B838-2F3C872F016B@googlemail.com> <87k4tww57r.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <20100301173017.GF1061@Sun.COM> <87k4tvk7ew.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <20100301224424.GN1061@Sun.COM> <87d3znr62u.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <24527_1267485995_o21NQY97007131_20100301231900.GO1061@Sun.COM>
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
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198
Cc: sasl@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sasl] Mechanism Negotiation and Channel Binding with SCRAM
X-BeenThere: sasl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SASL Working Group <sasl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sasl>, <mailto:sasl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sasl>
List-Post: <mailto:sasl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sasl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sasl>, <mailto:sasl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:24:37 -0000

--On Monday, March 01, 2010 05:19:01 PM -0600 Nicolas Williams 
<Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:10:49AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> 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.
>
> _Now_ is the time to ask.

I'm inclined to leave it as-is, simply because quite a few people have 
thought rather carefully about how the negotiation process covers all the 
possible cases, and relaxing a requirement risks invalidating an assumption 
that someone made during that evaluation.

However, I don't feel terribly strongly about it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email