From e0ee1c71083871d3bcf5c6de983c102dac9dd213 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sam Hartman Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:36:53 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Avoid emphasis where not intended --- design/tlv.mdwn | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/design/tlv.mdwn b/design/tlv.mdwn index ec1be93..58355ad 100644 --- a/design/tlv.mdwn +++ b/design/tlv.mdwn @@ -20,11 +20,11 @@ hartmans: OK, so there are two different usages. 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. @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ hartmans: Sadly, Jari is not online. (He's the obvious eap expert in my buddy li 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: ? @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ lukeh: there are still a few too many special cases to be completely in love wit 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 @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ lukeh: #define ITOK_TYPE_CONTEXT_ERR 0x00000001 #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? @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ lukeh: note: the states are bitmasks. 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) @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ lukeh: yes, I guess we do, what else could one do? 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. -- 2.1.4