Subject: [dispatch] Client ID in IMAP

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:17:33 +0100

After reading through this document, I have just one question:

Why, when adding a mechanism to extend the authentication mechanism in 
IMAP, isn't this an extension to the authentication mechanism rather 
than an extension to the base protocol?

---

From: Brandon Long <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:52:53 -0700

This has been the stance of a lot of people who have discussed this
(including myself), that making a new SASL mechanism using this would more
clearly fit the standards.

One argument that has been offered is that there are a number of SASL
mechanisms, and this would be useful to add to many of them.  I think
another was ease of implementation.  IIRC there were also some arguments
that the ID could be useful at other levels than pure auth.

Note that the SASL mechanism PLAIN-CLIENTTOKEN that is advertised by Google
is basically the sasl version of this, it was an initial experiment we had
because OAUTHBEARER was taking a long time to get finalized.

Brandon

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 5:17 AM Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>