Subject: What am I waiting on for gs2?

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:27:35 -0500

I seem to have dropped the ball on gs2.  What if anything am I waiting
on to align with RFC 5056?

Were the other issues all resolved?

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:26:14 +0100

> Were the other issues all resolved?

As far as I understood, the concern you raised was that GS2 had to
supply two fields for the channel binding prefix and the channel binding
data, which was not how I had understood the channel-binding document.
The channel-binding document was changed to prefix all data with the
unique prefix, I think.  Thus no change would be needed for GS2.

A completely fresh review of the channel binding section of GS2 in light
of the final RFC 5056 by channel binding experts may be useful though.

According to <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2892> your
other concerns have been fixed.

/Simon

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:35 -0500

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Simon> Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> I seem to have dropped the ball on gs2.  What if anything am I
    >> waiting on to align with RFC 5056?
    >> 

    Simon> As far as I understood, the concern you raised was that GS2
    Simon> had to supply two fields for the channel binding prefix and
    Simon> the channel binding data, which was not how I had
    Simon> understood the channel-binding document.  The
    Simon> channel-binding document was changed to prefix all data
    Simon> with the unique prefix, I think.  Thus no change would be
    Simon> needed for GS2.

I agree with this.

    Simon> A completely fresh review of the channel binding section of
    Simon> GS2 in light of the final RFC 5056 by channel binding
    Simon> experts may be useful though.

I think this review could be done during ietf last call.  So, I'll try
to send gs2 to the ietf.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:52:28 -0500

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:

Simon, I reviewed the changes and I believe that there is one open
issue.

The channel binding spec requires applications know about channel
binding failure.  You added text passing this requirement along, but I
don't see how your protocol allows the client to detect channel
binding failure.

We have c->m->s where m is a passive man in the middle that joins the
TLS stream.  So, the channel bindings are different.  C sends the
gss_wrap to s using the same qop for channel binding and non-channel
binding.
How does s indicate to c that the channel binding from s's standpoint is not the same as what it received from c?

I think you need a bit (possibly as a flag bit xored in with the qop)
to indicate this.

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
To: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: What am I waiting on for gs2?
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:52:28 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:

Simon, I reviewed the changes and I believe that there is one open
issue.

The channel binding spec requires applications know about channel
binding failure.  You added text passing this requirement along, but I
don't see how your protocol allows the client to detect channel
binding failure.

We have c->m->s where m is a passive man in the middle that joins the
TLS stream.  So, the channel bindings are different.  C sends the
gss_wrap to s using the same qop for channel binding and non-channel
binding.
How does s indicate to c that the channel binding from s's standpoint is not the same as what it received from c?

I think you need a bit (possibly as a flag bit xored in with the qop)
to indicate this.

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
To: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: What am I waiting on for gs2?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:35 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]

I agree with this.

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
To: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: What am I waiting on for gs2?
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:26:14 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]

/Simon

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: What am I waiting on for gs2?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:27:35 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]

Cc: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
To: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: updated charter proposal
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:05:53 -0800
Sender: [email-masked]

On Nov 3, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
>> And I vaguely recall that there were three drafts in the
>> direction of "apr1" and "digest-md5 replacement", SCRAM
>> + HEXA + YAP.  Apparently the proposed charter only covers
>> the future SCRAM + HEXA union, what about YAP ?
>>
> The author of the YAP mechanism was not convinced that this should  
> be a WG document.

The more I think about YAP the more I think it should be viewed as  
experimental.  I see no reason to burden the WG with this experiment.   
I intend to change the intended category to Experimental in the next  
revision.

> As people have interest in reviewing the document (so it seems), it  
> doesn't make much difference if it is a WG document or not.

Right.

-- Kurt (not wearing any particular hat)

To: [email-masked]
Subject: SASL session timing at IETF70
From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:22:42 -0500
Lines: 3
Sender: [email-masked]

SASL session is currently scheduled for 13:00-15:00 Wednesday
Dec. 5th.  It doesn't look like there are any conflicts to speak of,
but please let me know ASAP if there are problems.

Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:11:30 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
To: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: updated charter proposal
Sender: [email-masked]

Frank Ellermann wrote:

>And I vaguely recall that there were three drafts in the
>direction of "apr1" and "digest-md5 replacement", SCRAM
>+ HEXA + YAP.  Apparently the proposed charter only covers
>the future SCRAM + HEXA union, what about YAP ?
>  
>
The author of the YAP mechanism was not convinced that this should be a 
WG document. As people have interest in reviewing the document (so it 
seems), it doesn't make much difference if it is a WG document or not.