[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03

From: Tobias Markmann <tmarkmann at googlemail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>
Cc: xmpp at ietf.org
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:43:51 +0100
In-reply-to: <4B02FC5D.5080305 at stpeter.im>
References: <5cfc0a8e0911161126ha0d3f1eobfb8216f929a8fab at mail.gmail.com> <4B025638.6090101 at isode.com> <4B02FC5D.5080305 at stpeter.im>

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:

That was the intent for mechanism-too-weak. For example, if you want to
authenticate as an administrative user then you might not be allowed to
use a weaker mechanism (even if the server offered it to you because it
didn't know who you were at that point).

I completely understand the use case. It just seems kind of stupid to select a mechanism which isn't advertised. Sure you can't do otherwise the way SASL has been designed since you don't know the username before advertising the supported mechanisms.

Tobias

--
Tobias Markmann
http://ayena.de

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03
  - From: Peter Saint-Andre

References:
- [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03
  - From: Tobias Markmann
- Re: [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03
  - From: Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03
  - From: Peter Saint-Andre

Prev by Date: Re: [xmpp] 3921bis: ack of subscription request
Next by Date: Re: [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03
Previous by thread: Re: [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03
Next by thread: Re: [xmpp] SASL errors in 3920bis-03
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.