Re: Fwd: "POP3 SASL Authentication Mechanism" submitted for publication
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:39:38 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pop3ext,gmane.ietf.sasl |
|---|---|
| Organization | <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> The multi-line response client to server confuse me. >>> Which SASL mechanism needs this ? >> There's no multi-line response (unless I'm missing something). > Indeed. > There are mechanisms with multiple challenges/responses. Let's see, I hope I got it now. What really happens is this: C: AUTH mech initial-response-if-allowed-for-mech S: + callenge C: response S: + challenge C: response S: +OK your're logged in, maibox locked, have fun However the ABNF put's the complete part of the client into one <auth-command> = "AUTH" mech [SP ir] *( CRLF [base64]) CRLF My confusion was that I thought the client sends this complete multi-line <auth-command> at once, without intervening server challenges. Maybe it's only me, then forget it. Otherwise the ABNF has a <continue-req> for the "+" SP [base64] CRLF from the server, it could similarl also define a <continue-response>: auth-command = "AUTH" mech [initial-response] CRLF *(response) initial-response = SP (base64 / "=") ; a single "=" if empty response = [base64] CRLF ; after server challenge [Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:] >> there's no very good way to express this in the ABNF Yes, but maybe using an explicit <response> with a comment helps. For Hector's multi-line observation I'm not sure what that was, an implementor confused like me, or some kind of pipelining. Frank