lukeh: as my understanding is we get the acceptor name back anyway in the EAP CB attributes
hartmans: 1) server name indication: the initiator knows the target name, but the acceptor may server multiple names.
hartmans: Here, the acceptor wants to know what name the initiator is calling.
-***hartmans needs to think through the gss implications of what names the server accepts with Nico
+\*\*\*hartmans needs to think through the gss implications of what names the server accepts with Nico
hartmans: The other usage is null target name: the initiator doesn't know the target name but will look at the target name in the established context and see if it likes it.
hartmans: However in our mechanism, the initiator needs to learn the target name early so it can channel bind to it in EAP so it actually can believe the result.
hartmans: No, we don't get the acceptor name back in the eap CB.
-hartmans: We *send* it in the eap cb and get back an indication about whether the server considered it in the CB result.
+hartmans: We \*send\* it in the eap cb and get back an indication about whether the server considered it in the CB result.
lukeh: ah.
hartmans: We don't get the value back.
hartmans: The other thing I'm wondering.
Josh: I think we have previously floated the idea of using that data field for federation selection
lukeh: heh, can we shove the acceptor name in there
hartmans: Josh, I think that the changes we're talking about for target name null and for sni will give us the rope we need for federation selection.
-***hartmans will investigate what that's useful for.
+\*\*\*hartmans will investigate what that's useful for.
lukeh: please define SNI
lukeh: server name indication
lukeh: ?
lukeh: but hopefully after a few more days of hacking it will get there
lukeh: I've added some debug tokens in the initial leg to test that that works
lukeh: the previous extension tokens (GSS CB, reauth) are now just, obviously, TLVs in the last leg
-lukeh: there is now only one *GSS* token for context establishment, TOK_TYPE_ESTABLISH_CONTEXT
+lukeh: there is now only one \*GSS\* token for context establishment, TOK_TYPE_ESTABLISH_CONTEXT
lukeh: and a bunch of "inner" token types
lukeh: #define ITOK_TYPE_CONTEXT_ERR 0x00000001
#define ITOK_TYPE_ACCEPTOR_NAME_REQ 0x00000002
#define ITOK_TYPE_REAUTH_RESP 0x00000009
#define ITOK_TYPE_VERSION_INFO 0x0000000A
#define ITOK_TYPE_VENDOR_INFO 0x0000000B
- #define ITOK_FLAG_CRITICAL 0x80000000 /* critical, wire flag */
+ #define ITOK_FLAG_CRITICAL 0x80000000 /\* critical, wire flag \*/
lukeh: s/last leg/last round trip/
hartmans: What do you mean by token types in the table?
lukeh: there's some verbose commenting in init_sm.c too.
hartmans: Ah, that makes so much more sense from the table
hartmans: This is quite clever.
-lukeh: Hmm, it still doesn't feel *quite* right. Too many exceptions. I suspect if that if I was doing it from scratch rather than refactoring it might look different. But, it seems to work for now. Will revise over coming days.
+lukeh: Hmm, it still doesn't feel \*quite\* right. Too many exceptions. I suspect if that if I was doing it from scratch rather than refactoring it might look different. But, it seems to work for now. Will revise over coming days.
lukeh: I think it is ugly because it collapses the state and token dimensions into a single one.
lukeh: However it does make it easier to have tokens that support multiple states.
lukeh: Although there are some limitations with that (the dispatch table is not retraversed after a state change so it effectively only works for exception tokens; of course, that's easily fixed)
lukeh: it's a black box
lukeh: I don't know what happens yet if the EAP machine emits a token on success, I don't think that's possible though
lukeh: I need to check
-***hartmans has too much of a relational database mindset to think of that as more than an efficiency issue
+\*\*\*hartmans has too much of a relational database mindset to think of that as more than an efficiency issue
lukeh: yeah, I never used relational databases, so I never had that mindset
hartmans: I think depending on EAP to be consistent is fine.
hartmans: We could actually echo the eap state in some sort of market token. That would be far far worse.