Subject: [TLS] The TLS User Mapping Extension draft is available

From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:03:29 -0000

I submitted the draft a while ago but it got lost in the internet-drafts
mail system (possibly got caught in the spam filter :).

But finally it was resolved and the draft is now available from:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-santesson-tls-ume-00.txt

Stefan Santesson
Program Manager, Standards Liaison
Windows Security

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Jan Mikkelsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:33:06 +1100

Hi,

I just had a quick look at your ID, and I have some minor comments.

In the introduction, you say that if the server doesn't understand this 
extension, it will respond with a non-extended ServerHello.  The server 
could respond with an extended ServerHello that doesn't include this 
extension;  other extensions may be supported.

The UpnDomainHint field "user_principle_name" should probably be 
"user_principal_name".  It is correct elsewhere in the document.

Having an enum name and a struct name both be "UpnDomainHint" is 
confusing.  Perhaps the enum value could be "upn_domain_hint".

The UserMappingData struct only allows a single hint type.  Could it be 
useful to allow multiple hint types in a single session setup?

The requirement that UpnDomainHint should have at least one member 
populated could also be met by separating the domain and principal hints 
and allowing multiple hints in UserMappingData.

This is just from a quick reading;  I haven't thought about the issues 
in any more detail.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Jan Mikkelsen