Re: Request for consensus call on channel binding type negotiation (Re: Updated SASL And Channel Binding document (-03))

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeffrey,
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 
negotiation.

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.