On May 29, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Kurt has not told us where he stands on our proposal.
While I have stated a number of concerns, but in general and specifically in response to your proposal, I have yet decided whether I support your proposal. As I noted in Jeffrey's message, I am currently considering the impacts of your proposal on possible negotiation solutions. I do plan on making a stand before the poll expires.
Kurt has told us where he stands on the poll: a variant of option 3 is his preferred approach. Specifically Kurt prefers (preferred?) asolution where we do channel binding type negotiation now, and we do itvia SASL mechanism names that incorporate both, an actual mechanism name, and the name of a single channel binding type. That was before Jeff and I made our proposal.
I also plan on revising my poll response, primarily in response to various proposals (including but not limited to yours).
Our proposal does not, in fact, preclude Kurt's preferred approach -- itonly defers the addition of channel binding type negotiation to some future time. Kurt has aknowledged this.
Well, while I would agree that your proposal doesn't preclude my approach, I wouldn't say it "only defers the addition ...". I do think your proposal does place my approach at a slight disadvantage in subsequent engineering discussions. To illustrate this point, consider whether you would agree to changing SCRAM-*-PLUS to SCRAM-*- TLS-END-POINT now. I suspect you would object to this, because the negotiation solutions you favor would no need for this. But likewise, my negotiation approach has no need for SCRAM-*-PLUS.
But as I noted in my comments, I consider this to be quite a minor disadvantage. While I certainly will consider this impact, I don't think it will be a major deciding factor on what stand I take in the end.
-- Kurt