Re: Updated SASL And Channel Binding document (-03)

[Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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:
> 	SCRAM-SHA-1
> 	SCRAM-SHA-1-ENDPOINT
> 	SCRAM-SHA-1-UNIQUE

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.

/Simon