Re: protocol: closing SASL upon Unbind

Sorry about the delay.

Jim Sermersheim writes:
> For my education, what about this is slightly wrong?
>
>>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <[email protected]> 1/24/05 12:22:03 PM
>
> Ouch. I lost those threads completely, while trying to unravel some
> SASL stuff. IIRC; after Kurt's last (private) explanation I think
> this text will be slightly wrong whatever we do, unless we leave the
> details underspecified as in earlier drafts. Or unless the SASL spec
> is modified. So I guess this text is as good as any.

I still think - but still need to look at this - that the only ways
[SASL] provide to remove a SASL layer is "closing the connection" and
"replacing the layer".  If a SASL implementation provides "removing the
layer" as a separate operation, that's a SASL extension.  If LDAP - or a
SASL mechanism - requires support for first removing the layer, then
doing something else on the connection, and then closing it, then it
depends on an extension to [SASL].  LDAP does not refer to the
definition of this extension.

OTOH, Kurt listed privately quite a number of horrors with doing things
the other way around: First removing the TLS layer, then the SASL layer.
For example, note the problems we had with TLS layer removal - we had to
invalidate the connection afterwards.  SASL above TLS has the same
problem.  In particular if closing the SASL layer involves messages in
both directions, which I believe Kurt said was possible.

Which reminds me: Something - either [SASL] or [Protocol] or [Authmeth]
- needs a warning about security problems with removing security layers
in the wrong order.  Since LDAP explicitly allows them to be added in
any order, maybe a warning in an LDAP document is a good thing.
Otherwise someone might feel the natural way to remove the layers is in
the reverse order of how they were added.

>Jim Sermersheim writes:
>> Unless there are further issues with this, I will replace the current
>> instructions for Unbind with Kurts suggested text here.
>>
>> >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" < [email protected] > 12/7/04 6:43:45 PM >>>
>> My previous suggestion does not adequately cover the
>> issue of graceful closure of the LDAP session. That is,
>> the reason why a particular order was suggested was that
>> it was thought to be graceful. So while I have no
>> problem with removing the ordering aspect of the current
>> text, I'd like to indicate that Unbind/Notice of Disconnect
>> are intended to affect a graceful closure.
>>
>> Hence, I suggest:
>>
>> The client, upon transmission of the UnbindRequest, and
>> the server, upon receipt of the UnbindRequest are to
>> gracefully close the LDAP session by ceasing exchange
>> at the LDAP message layer, tearing down any SASL layer,
>> tearing down any TLS layer, and closing the transport
>> connection.
>>
>> I note that while the 4 actions the implementation might need
>> to take are stated in the order which the implementation likely
>> would need to affect graceful closure of the LDAP session,
>> the text does not actually prescribe a particular order, nor
>> does it imply that any exchange within the SASL and/or TLS
>> layer would been necessary.

-- 
Hallvard