Subject: RE: Comments on 2831 Confidentiality Protection

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:07:05 -0700

>From the information on the SASL website it appears to me that 2831 is currently 'under revision', hence my suggestion to allow use of ESP as an option for encoding the integrity and confidentiality protection.  This could easily be done by simply specifying an 'encoding' field in much the same way the ciper is specified.  If the intent is to only 'tweak' technical errors then this suggestion is clearly too late. 

--
Glenn

> >
> >I just stumbled across the rfc Wednesday.  When was the last call ?
> 
> December 1998.
> 
> >It "would have been" nice
> 
> Lot's of things "would have been" nice.
> 
> We need to focus on resolving clear technical errors and omissions.
> 
> Kurt 
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:03:14 -0400

>>>>> "glenn" == glenn engel <[email-masked]> writes:

    glenn> From the information on the SASL website it appears to me
    glenn> that 2831 is currently 'under revision', hence my
    glenn> suggestion to allow use of ESP as an option for encoding
    glenn> the integrity and confidentiality protection.  This could
    glenn> easily be done by simply specifying an 'encoding' field in
    glenn> much the same way the ciper is specified.  If the intent is
    glenn> to only 'tweak' technical errors then this suggestion is
    glenn> clearly too late.

The intent is certainly to avoid breaking backward compatibility.

Chris's comments suggest that introducing a different encoding for
newer ciphers would be unpopular, presumably because it would
introduce implementation complexity and increase the complexity of the
spec.

So, yes, it looks like people believe this change is not worth making,
although they agree in an ideal world reuse of technology would be
good.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:03:14 -0400