Subject: Re: result code for a deleted identity on a connection

From: "Vithalprasad Gaitonde" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 23:55:22 -0600

"But I'm thinking RFC 2251, 4.4.1 should be clarified as well:
        - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an
establish
          security association between the client and server has
          unexpectedly failed or been compromised, or that the
          server now requires the client to authenticate using a
          strong(er) mechanism."
But what does strong(er) imply in the case which we are talking
about...does that mean the client has to go over TLS or use some SASL
bind and not use a clear text simple bind ?..at least that was the
conventional meaning of strongauthrequired.

Prasad

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 5/3/2003 4:08:01 AM >>>
At 01:59 PM 5/2/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>> We should probably have a result code like invalidIdentity which
is
>>> sent back with a notice of disconnection (section 4.4.1 protocol
draft)
>>> followed by a closing of the connection by the server.
>> 
>> RFC 2251, 4.4.1:
>>>   - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an
established
>>>     underlying security association protecting communication
between
>>>     the client and server has unexpectedly failed or been
compromised.
>> 
>> I think it would be reasonable to return this in this case as well.
>
>Why ask for _strong_ auth, and not just auth?

First, we've clarified the result code, in general, to mean:
>        strongAuthRequired (8)
>           Except when returned in a Notice of Disconnect (see section

>           4.4.1), this indicates that the server requires the client
to
>           authentication using a strong(er) mechanism.

But I'm thinking RFC 2251, 4.4.1 should be clarified as well:
        - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an
establish
          security association between the client and server has
          unexpectedly failed or been compromised, or that the
          server now requires the client to authenticate using a
          strong(er) mechanism.

That is, generalized the result code here as well.  I also
think other codes should be allowed in the Notice.  I think
it reasonable for implementations to return a variety of
other codes including busy, other, adminLimitExceeded,
unwillingToPerform, and confidentialityRequired.

Kurt

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 17:21:55 -0700

At 10:55 PM 5/4/2003, Vithalprasad Gaitonde wrote:
>about...

In this case, it's the former part of the description which applies.
That is, the code indicates that a security association has failed.

>does that mean the client has to go over TLS or use some SASL
>bind and not use a clear text simple bind ?

It means either a security association has failed or the
better mechanisms are needed.

>.at least that was the