Ken Murchison wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
For the latter case the current syntax is b login arnt tnra (SID 1234432143)
which will do exactly what you are asking for. Extending LOGIN also saves a round trip.
This *could* still work with SASL-IR because AFAIR '(' isn't a valid base64 character. The parser could just check the first character of third argument to see if its '(' and proceed accordingly. We already have to do this for LISTEXT to detemine if we're using LISTEXT syntax or LIST syntax. So check handling both
b authenticate plain (SID 1234432143)
and
b authenticate plain AGFybnQAdG5yYQ== (SID 1234432143)
shouldn't be too difficult.
Exactly.
Rob Siemborski wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi,
draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect and draft-siemborski-imap-sasl-initial-response conflict, because they extend AUTHENTICATE in the same way.
We've already marked this as an open issue in the reconnect draft.
I've suspected, but I didn't have time to check. This will be fix in the next revision.
Out of curiosity, what fix are you planning on doing?
I am planning to consolidate ABNF and use what Ken is proposing, i.e.
authenticate = "AUTHENTICATE" SP auth-type
[SP (base64 / "=")] [login-params]
*(CRLF base64)
An alternative would be to put AUTHENTICATE options in () before the SASL mechanism name.
Alexey
