Re: SASL mechanisms via GSS-API and round trips

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@xxxxxxx> writes:

    Nicolas> Sam, GS2 takes adavantage of PROT_READY where available.

No, GS2 implementations may take advantage of prot_ready where available but are not required to do so.

    Nicolas> 
    Nicolas> I think that's enough.  I don't think there's any need to
    Nicolas> require PROT_READY support of new mechanisms, though I
    Nicolas> would strongly recommend PROT_READY support where it is
    Nicolas> actually feasible (I can imagine mechanisms where
    Nicolas> PROT_READY couldn't be signalled before GSS_S_COMPLETE).

I explained why I don't think this is enough.  I'd appreciate an explanation of why I'm wrong.

Note, I'm only saying we should require prot_ready for new mechanisms
that people are going to want to implement as sasl native, not for all
new mechanisms.