[TLS] RE: Review of draft-santesson-tls-gssapi-03

Simon wrote:
> A new handshake message type or just a new handshake message?  If the latter, I still think you need to discuss how implementations should react if they receive unsupported token_type's.  I look
> forwward to new text.

The former, it should be treated as a new handshake message type.

> > Assuming that, all your comments have been addressed to your
> > satisfactory, right?

> Yes I think so, although I may have opinions on how the issues are
> ultimately solved in later drafts.

Thanks for the positive acknowledgement.

--larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon@josefsson.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:23 AM
To: Larry Zhu
Cc: tls@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Review of draft-santesson-tls-gssapi-03

Larry Zhu <lzhu@windows.microsoft.com> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> do you think this is better? Thanks.
>
>> Ah, I see.  You fail to specify the size of the length field though.  I would prefer to make the token explicit though, by adding e.g.:
>>
>>        struct {
>>            opaque gss_api_data<0..2^32-1>;
>>        } GSSAPIExtensionData;
> The size of the length field is defined in section 2.3 of RFC3546. It is 2 in octets.

Ok, now I get it, thanks.

>> If you want to have this field, you need to specify how implementations
>> should behave if multiple TokenTransfer tokens are received during the
>> handshake and when only some of them contain supported token_type's.
>> Otherwise this structure can never be used in any future extension in a
>> reliable way.
>
> A new value would indicate a new handshake message. I would make this
> clear, hopefully that addresses your comments w.r.t. this point.

A new handshake message type or just a new handshake message?  If the
latter, I still think you need to discuss how implementations should
react if they receive unsupported token_type's.  I look forwward to new
text.

> Assuming that, all your comments have been addressed to your
> satisfactory, right?

Yes I think so, although I may have opinions on how the issues are
ultimately solved in later drafts.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls