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

Re: Poll: use of TLS channel bindings in SCRAM




Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

--On Friday, May 29, 2009 10:59:17 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

I'm glad you like it.  I'm not entirely happy with it: you can't parse
it using a var[=value] parser, you need to inspect the string character
by character in the beginning.  One alternative would be (compare with
the examples in the document):

I see a couple of problems with the grammar. One is that in the 'p' and 'y' cases, you get two consecutive commas if there is no authzid.

-1. I think it would be better to use 2 commas, because this is a sure sign that the GS2 header has ended.

The other is that in the 'n' case, you get no comma before the authzid, if there is one.

+1.

I think it would be better to always have a comma after the [pny] field, and another after the a=authzid iff it is present.

I have no objection to the [py]= syntax you suggest; that might make parsing easier, and we're changing the format of that field anyway.

I see no reason to include a comma after the 'F' prefix.

+1.