[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))




--On Wednesday, May 27, 2009 02:02:15 PM -0700 Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 27, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:


NB: I hate SASL's use of the word "protocol" to mean "something
built on top of SASL", for which the word "application" would be
much more useful. One of the reasons I hate it is that it means that
about 50% of the audience gets confused when I use the word
"protocol" in its usual sense, as I do in this document.

The problem with "application" is that it often used, as Nico used it in
this thread, to refer to a component of an implementation as opposed
what's happening on wire within a particular layer of the protocol stack.

Yeah. From now on I will use a phrase like "SASL application protocol", to avoid ambiguity.