On May 29, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
If you don't agree with this approach to reaching consensus, please say so.I am fine with this approach so long as what we do and say now doesn'tpreclude, hinder, or disadvantage any of the obvious and/or suggested (though possibly not broadly supported) negotiation solutions from being subsequent chosen as the solution.You must review the proposal and tell us whether it meets your requirement
From my initial review of your proposal:1) Jeffrey's message <2C640B3F7470041AD6A981CB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) suggests your proposal does preclude in-the-mechanism negotiation. However, I wonder if the SCRAM extension mechanism could be used to provide such. Your assessment of the possibility to subsequently extend SCRAM and GS2 to support in-the-the mechanism exchange negotiation would be of interest to me. I think debate over the suitability of such negotiation could be deferred.
2) it appears to hinder the subsequent adoption of the negotiation solution as it uses SCRAM mechanism names to select whether channel binding is to be used or not instead of for channeling binding is to be used, and if which, or not. That is, it registers a -PLUS mechanism. My solution has no use or need for a -PLUS mechanism, but I'd be forced to deal with the existence of the -PLUS mechanism and hence placing the subsequent adoption of my solution at disadvantage albeit quite a minor one.
-- Kurt