[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Request for consensus call on channel binding type negotiation (Re: Updated SASL And Channel Binding document (-03))
I will reply to your technical comments separately.
Here I just comment on this:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
While I appreciate your and Alexey's desire to finish these documents,
we still have an open issue which is likely to affect them, and so I
believe that a WGLC on either document is premature.
I don't believe it is.
Firstly, this issue is largely orthogonal to SCRAM/GS2 design. Very
little would change if we can reach consensus on channel binding
Secondly, we failed to reach consensus on this issue so far. Asking to
just table SCRAM/GS2 till we reach a consensus is not reasonable,
because there is no guaranty that that would happen at all.
I know you believe that true negotiation is unnecessary and that
hardcoding behavior into individual mechanisms is OK, but several of
us do not share that view, and lacking a demonstrated consensus _on
that issue_, I do not believe it can be considered closed.
Particularly, I know there are other people who have not spoken up on
this issue, and so I do not believe that consensus can be accurately
read from the discussion so far.
I've talked to Nico at length about this and I think we have a proposal,
or at least a set of alternatives that people should decide on. I will
send it separately.
So, there is so hope of concluding this particular issue.