Re: AD Review for draft-ietf-sasl-gssapi-xx.txt

[Simon Josefsson <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> After the followup conversation with Sam he convinced me that this is
> the right thing.
>
> OLD text:
>   If the client will be requesting a security
>   layer, it MUST also supply to the GSS_Init_sec_context a
>   mutual_req_flag of TRUE, a sequence_req_flag of TRUE, and an
>   integ_req_flag of TRUE.  If the client will be requesting a security
>   layer providing confidentiality protection, it MUST also supply to
>   the GSS_Init_sec_context a conf_req_flag of TRUE.
>
> NEW text:
>
>  When calling the GSS_Init_sec_context the client MUST
>  pass the integ_req_flag of TRUE. If the client will be requesting a
> security
>  layer, it MUST also supply to the GSS_Init_sec_context a
>  mutual_req_flag of TRUE, and a sequence_req_flag of TRUE.
>  If the client will be requesting a security
>  layer providing confidentiality protection, it MUST also supply to the
>  GSS_Init_sec_context a conf_req_flag of TRUE.

The same text is found in the GS2 document as well.  I have made the
same change in it, but I also added:

   The client MUST verify that the requested flags become enabled in
   the context.

I suggest that the same, or similar, text is added to GS1.

Without that text, it seems as if the mechanism could simply ignore
them, and (for the C bindings) that the RET_FLAGS variable indicate
that they were never negotiated.  That seems to be a fatal problem to
me.  Or am I missing something?

/Simon