Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:02:53PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi Nico,
Nicolas Williams wrote:
13.3. Additional Recommendations
If the application requires security layers then it MUST prefer the
SASL "GSSAPI" mechanism over "GS2-KRB5" or "GS2-KRB5-PLUS".
Spencer (minor): If "prefer the mechanism" is the right way to describe
this, I apologize, but I don't know what the MUST means in practice - if
this needs to be at MUST strength, I'd expect text like "MUST use X and
MUST NOT use Y or Z", or "MUST use X unless the server doesn't support X".
Agreed, we should express a MUST NOT instead of a MUST:
If a SASL application requires security layers then it MUST NOT use
GS2 mechanisms. Such an application SHOULD use a SASL mechanism that
does provide security layers, such as GS1 mechanisms.
There is no such thing as GS1, it should be GSSAPI. Otherwise the new
text is Ok.
The I-D says:
The original
GSS-API->SASL mechanism bridge was specified by [RFC2222], now
[RFC4752]; we shall sometimes refer to the original bridge as GS1 in
this document.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Very well. I forgot about that.
There's good reason, even, to want to use "GS1" to refer to RFC4572:
RFC2222/4572's use of "GSSAPI" to refer to the "Kerberos V5 GSS-API
mechanism" is wrong and confusing. Avoiding confusion is a good thing.
Personally I dislike unnecessary indirection, as it allows for extra
confusion as well. There is only 1 mechanism in GS1 family (ignoring
GSS-SPNEGO), it is called "GSSAPI". So I think the original text is
actually better, if we add a reference and change "prefer" to "use":
If the application requires SASL security layers then it MUST use the
SASL "GSSAPI" mechanism [RFC4572] instead of "GS2-KRB5" or "GS2-KRB5-PLUS".
Opinions?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf