Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sasl-channel-bindings-00.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
[...]

> As RFC 4422 doesn't itself attempt to abstract away the differences  
> between mechanisms, it can and should remain mum here.

I actually disagree. When I think about SASL I am thinking about such 
abstraction.
For example a protocol service name is a part of this abstraction, even 
though mechanism are not required to use it. Authorization identity is 
another part.

> Likewise, RFC 4422 ought not try to abstract away the differences in  
> mechanisms that support channel bindings.  For instance, presently 
> the  suggestion is mandate two names per mechanisms.

I disagree with your first statement in this paragraph, but I am 
agreeing with the second.

> But what if tomorrow  we find this isn't good enough.  We'd have to 
> update RFC 4422 to allow  introduction of something which was just 
> because we were short-sighted  today.