![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
session. Instead opaque identifiers in the GSS challenge option field are optionally used together with channel bindings to provide a way to share a security context over several HTTP connections.
- RL "Bob"
Tim Alsop wrote:I am under the impression that the proposed SASL mechanism doesn't support channel bindings, partially because channel bindings have been a notoriously difficult problem to get right in SASL space. Personally I din't see the value of adding the extra layer of glue.Have you considered using SASL over HTTP with GSS-API, as described in :
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sasl/draft-nystrom-http-sasl-12.txt
I was under the impression that the above draft was the preferred method to improve on the HTTP negotiate approach.
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________ Kitten mailing list Kitten at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
_______________________________________________ Kitten mailing list Kitten at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten