Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-openid-06

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

At 12:20 PM +0100 11/3/11, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Stephen Kent <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>...
>
>Perhaps the solution is to remove text rather than add more?
>
>I share Jeff's concern that adding text here may give the impression
>that it implies something different than what a SASL implementer would
>expect to follow automatically from the normative references.
>
>How about removing this sentence:
>
>        The GS2 header carries the optional authorization identity.

OK with me.

>from section 3.1 and modify the other paragraph in section 3.1 into
>
>    The syntax and semantics of the "gs2-header" is specified in
>    [RFC5801], and we use it here with the following limitations.  The
>    "gs2-nonstd-flag" MUST NOT be present.  The "gs2-cb- flag" MUST be
>    "n" because channel binding is not supported by this mechanism.
>
>The document is already clear elsewhere that the mechanism supports the
>concept of authorization identities (see beginning of section 3).
>
>The syntax and semantics of the authorization identity field is covered
>normatively by the base SASL specification and the GS2 document.

OK.

Steve