On 18 Jun 2016 18:31, "Florian Schmaus" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 05.06.2016 21:58, Dave Cridland wrote: > > I still think you're trying to produce a rpelacement for SASL, and > > that's something that seems much more complex and nuanced. My concern > > remains that you've presented a one-size-fits-all approach, and the bulk > > of the problems you're trying to fix are the same ones that SASL > > attempts to address. > > I don't think that is true at all. SASL authenticates an account, > whereas ISR authenticates a stream resumption. >
Are you suggesting that ISR does not perform any authentication? > > On 5 Jun 2016 18:51, "Florian Schmaus" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > My dear members of the XMPP Council, Hi everyone else :) > > > > I would like to put the "Instant Stream Resumption (ISR)" XEP proposal > > back on Council's table. If I'm not mistaken, all Council members said > > to vote on list [1] in the meeting (2016-03-16) after I've re-submitted > > a overworked version of ISR, but none did so far. > > > > I'm aware that Dave suggested [2] to fit this into an eventually > > upcoming Multi-Step-Mechanism SASL approach [3], but this is all in the > > very early stages. I did not see much traction after [3] and I don't > > foresee an first draft of such a specification in the near future. But > > on the other hand, we need ISR now[5]! I told people at FOSDEM 2015 that > > this is one major show stopper left for XMPP on mobile, and a similar > > approach to ISR came out of the industry [4]. So there is an urgent > > requirement for it. > > > > I also do think that potential SASL changes can and should *not* be > > considered a blocker for ISR. There sure will be an upgrade path on > > protocol level if Multi-Step-Mechanism SASL becomes a thing. > > > > I hope the XMPP Council also sees the need for ISR. I believe to have > > addressed all security concerns, e.g., ISR offers mutual authentication > > of the endpoints, and it does not replace SASL and therefore does not > > weaken SASL security in any way. So I hereby ask all Council members to > > submit the pending votes. > > > > Of course I hope for +1's. Please ask if there is anything left unclear. > > > > Thanks. > > > > - Florian > > > > > > 1: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2016-March/004091.html > > 2: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-March/030958.html > > 3: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-May/031047.html > > 4: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-February/030898.html > > 5: Besides: I'm not convinced (yet) that ISR should be designed like a > > SASL mechanism. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Standards mailing list > > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Standards mailing list > > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
