[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Updated SASL And Channel Binding document (-03)
Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On May 25, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> I'm more than happy to leave SCRAM and GS2 as they are, which
>> effectively means that we punt on channel binding type negotiation,
>> leaving us with a preference for end-point channel binding types over
>> unique ones.
> Generally and with respect to SCRAM, I rather change the specification
> to always require the use of unique channel bindings. I do understand
> however that some prefer use of end-point channel binding types in
> certain cases.
My preference is also the unique channel binding.
> One solution for SCRAM is to offer:
FWIW, I prefer that to the current approach. This variant allows
implementers to chose which channel binding type to support. The
*-UNIQUE variant needs to be the mandatory to implement because it is
the only with general applicability.