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

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:46:11AM -0700, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> I did read it carefully.  What you miss is that my concern is not just  
> about YAP, it's about undue restrictions upon future mechanisms...
> 
>   The document precludes, for instance, a mechanism design in which  
> different name for each type of channel binding the server is willing  
> to accept (e.g, "FOO" v. "FOO-CB-END-POINT" v. "FOO-CB-UNIQUE").

How does it do that?  Are we not free to add more rules later?