[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Poll: use of TLS channel bindings in SCRAM

To: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Poll: use of TLS channel bindings in SCRAM
From: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:23:55 -0700
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>, SASL WG <ietf-sasl@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <58F13295-5860-40FB-A55E-ACF9C0574A8D@xxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-sasl/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-sasl.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-sasl-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <4A1F06CF.80505@xxxxxxxxx> <58F13295-5860-40FB-A55E-ACF9C0574A8D@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-sasl@xxxxxxxxxxxx



On May 28, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:

That is, while I favor 3 but only if a negotiation is via names ofthe variants of the SCRAM mechanism. So I guess I rather call this5 as I rather my comments be take as supporting the other forms ofnegotiation.

yikes. I meant: I rather my comments NOT be taken as supporting otherforms of negotiation.

References:
- Poll: use of TLS channel bindings in SCRAM
  - From: Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Poll: use of TLS channel bindings in SCRAM
  - From: Kurt Zeilenga

Prev by Date: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-sasl-scram-01.txt
Previous by thread: Re: Poll: use of TLS channel bindings in SCRAM
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread