From: Kurt Zeilenga Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:38:07 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Add SASL RFC X-Git-Tag: UCDATA_2_4~183 X-Git-Url: https://git.sur5r.net/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=f179aa648af60fbda9dc620a6aeb7cd52c61e6d0;p=openldap Add SASL RFC --- diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2222.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2222.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..2b0a2abc10 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2222.txt @@ -0,0 +1,899 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group J. Myers +Request for Comments: 2222 Netscape Communications +Category: Standards Track October 1997 + + + Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Abstract .............................................. 2 + 2. Organization of this Document ......................... 2 + 2.1. How to Read This Document ............................. 2 + 2.2. Conventions Used in this Document ..................... 2 + 2.3. Examples .............................................. 3 + 3. Introduction and Overview ............................. 3 + 4. Profiling requirements ................................ 4 + 5. Specific issues ....................................... 5 + 5.1. Client sends data first ............................... 5 + 5.2. Server returns success with additional data ........... 5 + 5.3. Multiple authentications .............................. 5 + 6. Registration procedures ............................... 6 + 6.1. Comments on SASL mechanism registrations .............. 6 + 6.2. Location of Registered SASL Mechanism List ............ 6 + 6.3. Change Control ........................................ 7 + 6.4. Registration Template ................................. 7 + 7. Mechanism definitions ................................. 8 + 7.1. Kerberos version 4 mechanism .......................... 8 + 7.2. GSSAPI mechanism ...................................... 9 + 7.2.1 Client side of authentication protocol exchange ....... 9 + 7.2.2 Server side of authentication protocol exchange ....... 10 + 7.2.3 Security layer ........................................ 11 + 7.3. S/Key mechanism ....................................... 11 + 7.4. External mechanism .................................... 12 + 8. References ............................................ 13 + 9. Security Considerations ............................... 13 + 10. Author's Address ...................................... 14 + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + Appendix A. Relation of SASL to Transport Security .......... 15 + Full Copyright Statement .................................... 16 + +1. Abstract + + This document describes a method for adding authentication support to + connection-based protocols. To use this specification, a protocol + includes a command for identifying and authenticating a user to a + server and for optionally negotiating protection of subsequent + protocol interactions. If its use is negotiated, a security layer is + inserted between the protocol and the connection. This document + describes how a protocol specifies such a command, defines several + mechanisms for use by the command, and defines the protocol used for + carrying a negotiated security layer over the connection. + +2. Organization of this Document + +2.1. How to Read This Document + + This document is written to serve two different audiences, protocol + designers using this specification to support authentication in their + protocol, and implementors of clients or servers for those protocols + using this specification. + + The sections "Introduction and Overview", "Profiling requirements", + and "Security Considerations" cover issues that protocol designers + need to understand and address in profiling this specification for + use in a specific protocol. + + Implementors of a protocol using this specification need the + protocol-specific profiling information in addition to the + information in this document. + +2.2. Conventions Used in this Document + + In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and + server respectively. + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" + in this document are to be interpreted as defined in "Key words for + use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC 2119]. + + + + + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + +2.3. Examples + + Examples in this document are for the IMAP profile [RFC 2060] of this + specification. The base64 encoding of challenges and responses, as + well as the "+ " preceding the responses are part of the IMAP4 + profile, not part of the SASL specification itself. + +3. Introduction and Overview + + The Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) is a method for + adding authentication support to connection-based protocols. To use + this specification, a protocol includes a command for identifying and + authenticating a user to a server and for optionally negotiating a + security layer for subsequent protocol interactions. + + The command has a required argument identifying a SASL mechanism. + SASL mechanisms are named by strings, from 1 to 20 characters in + length, consisting of upper-case letters, digits, hyphens, and/or + underscores. SASL mechanism names must be registered with the IANA. + Procedures for registering new SASL mechanisms are given in the + section "Registration procedures" + + If a server supports the requested mechanism, it initiates an + authentication protocol exchange. This consists of a series of + server challenges and client responses that are specific to the + requested mechanism. The challenges and responses are defined by the + mechanisms as binary tokens of arbitrary length. The protocol's + profile then specifies how these binary tokens are then encoded for + transfer over the connection. + + After receiving the authentication command or any client response, a + server may issue a challenge, indicate failure, or indicate + completion. The protocol's profile specifies how the server + indicates which of the above it is doing. + + After receiving a challenge, a client may issue a response or abort + the exchange. The protocol's profile specifies how the client + indicates which of the above it is doing. + + During the authentication protocol exchange, the mechanism performs + authentication, transmits an authorization identity (frequently known + as a userid) from the client to server, and negotiates the use of a + mechanism-specific security layer. If the use of a security layer is + agreed upon, then the mechanism must also define or negotiate the + maximum cipher-text buffer size that each side is able to receive. + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + The transmitted authorization identity may be different than the + identity in the client's authentication credentials. This permits + agents such as proxy servers to authenticate using their own + credentials, yet request the access privileges of the identity for + which they are proxying. With any mechanism, transmitting an + authorization identity of the empty string directs the server to + derive an authorization identity from the client's authentication + credentials. + + If use of a security layer is negotiated, it is applied to all + subsequent data sent over the connection. The security layer takes + effect immediately following the last response of the authentication + exchange for data sent by the client and the completion indication + for data sent by the server. Once the security layer is in effect, + the protocol stream is processed by the security layer into buffers + of cipher-text. Each buffer is transferred over the connection as a + stream of octets prepended with a four octet field in network byte + order that represents the length of the following buffer. The length + of the cipher-text buffer must be no larger than the maximum size + that was defined or negotiated by the other side. + +4. Profiling requirements + + In order to use this specification, a protocol definition must supply + the following information: + + 1. A service name, to be selected from the IANA registry of "service" + elements for the GSSAPI host-based service name form [RFC 2078]. + + 2. A definition of the command to initiate the authentication + protocol exchange. This command must have as a parameter the + mechanism name being selected by the client. + + The command SHOULD have an optional parameter giving an initial + response. This optional parameter allows the client to avoid a + round trip when using a mechanism which is defined to have the + client send data first. When this initial response is sent by the + client and the selected mechanism is defined to have the server + start with an initial challenge, the command fails. See section + 5.1 of this document for further information. + + 3. A definition of the method by which the authentication protocol + exchange is carried out, including how the challenges and + responses are encoded, how the server indicates completion or + failure of the exchange, how the client aborts an exchange, and + how the exchange method interacts with any line length limits in + the protocol. + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + 4. Identification of the octet where any negotiated security layer + starts to take effect, in both directions. + + 5. A specification of how the authorization identity passed from the + client to the server is to be interpreted. + +5. Specific issues + +5.1. Client sends data first + + Some mechanisms specify that the first data sent in the + authentication protocol exchange is from the client to the server. + + If a protocol's profile permits the command which initiates an + authentication protocol exchange to contain an initial client + response, this parameter SHOULD be used with such mechanisms. + + If the initial client response parameter is not given, or if a + protocol's profile does not permit the command which initiates an + authentication protocol exchange to contain an initial client + response, then the server issues a challenge with no data. The + client's response to this challenge is then used as the initial + client response. (The server then proceeds to send the next + challenge, indicates completion, or indicates failure.) + +5.2. Server returns success with additional data + + Some mechanisms may specify that server challenge data be sent to the + client along with an indication of successful completion of the + exchange. This data would, for example, authenticate the server to + the client. + + If a protocol's profile does not permit this server challenge to be + returned with a success indication, then the server issues the server + challenge without an indication of successful completion. The client + then responds with no data. After receiving this empty response, the + server then indicates successful completion. + +5.3. Multiple authentications + + Unless otherwise stated by the protocol's profile, only one + successful SASL negotiation may occur in a protocol session. In this + case, once an authentication protocol exchange has successfully + completed, further attempts to initiate an authentication protocol + exchange fail. + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + In the case that a profile explicitly permits multiple successful + SASL negotiations to occur, then in no case may multiple security + layers be simultaneously in effect. If a security layer is in effect + and a subsequent SASL negotiation selects no security layer, the + original security layer remains in effect. If a security layer is in + effect and a subsequent SASL negotiation selects a second security + layer, then the second security layer replaces the first. + +6. Registration procedures + + Registration of a SASL mechanism is done by filling in the template + in section 6.4 and sending it in to iana@isi.edu. IANA has the right + to reject obviously bogus registrations, but will perform no review + of clams made in the registration form. + + There is no naming convention for SASL mechanisms; any name that + conforms to the syntax of a SASL mechanism name can be registered. + + While the registration procedures do not require it, authors of SASL + mechanisms are encouraged to seek community review and comment + whenever that is feasible. Authors may seek community review by + posting a specification of their proposed mechanism as an internet- + draft. SASL mechanisms intended for widespread use should be + standardized through the normal IETF process, when appropriate. + +6.1. Comments on SASL mechanism registrations + + Comments on registered SASL mechanisms should first be sent to the + "owner" of the mechanism. Submitters of comments may, after a + reasonable attempt to contact the owner, request IANA to attach their + comment to the SASL mechanism registration itself. If IANA approves + of this the comment will be made accessible in conjunction with the + SASL mechanism registration itself. + +6.2. Location of Registered SASL Mechanism List + + SASL mechanism registrations will be posted in the anonymous FTP + directory "ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/sasl- + mechanisms/" and all registered SASL mechanisms will be listed in the + periodically issued "Assigned Numbers" RFC [currently STD 2, RFC + 1700]. The SASL mechanism description and other supporting material + may also be published as an Informational RFC by sending it to "rfc- + editor@isi.edu" (please follow the instructions to RFC authors [RFC + 2223]). + + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + +6.3. Change Control + + Once a SASL mechanism registration has been published by IANA, the + author may request a change to its definition. The change request + follows the same procedure as the registration request. + + The owner of a SASL mechanism may pass responsibility for the SASL + mechanism to another person or agency by informing IANA; this can be + done without discussion or review. + + The IESG may reassign responsibility for a SASL mechanism. The most + common case of this will be to enable changes to be made to + mechanisms where the author of the registration has died, moved out + of contact or is otherwise unable to make changes that are important + to the community. + + SASL mechanism registrations may not be deleted; mechanisms which are + no longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE by a + change to their "intended use" field; such SASL mechanisms will be + clearly marked in the lists published by IANA. + + The IESG is considered to be the owner of all SASL mechanisms which + are on the IETF standards track. + +6.4. Registration Template + + To: iana@iana.org + Subject: Registration of SASL mechanism X + + SASL mechanism name: + + Security considerations: + + Published specification (optional, recommended): + + Person & email address to contact for further information: + + Intended usage: + + (One of COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE) + + Author/Change controller: + + (Any other information that the author deems interesting may be + added below this line.) + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + +7. Mechanism definitions + + The following mechanisms are hereby defined. + +7.1. Kerberos version 4 mechanism + + The mechanism name associated with Kerberos version 4 is + "KERBEROS_V4". + + The first challenge consists of a random 32-bit number in network + byte order. The client responds with a Kerberos ticket and an + authenticator for the principal "service.hostname@realm", where + "service" is the service name specified in the protocol's profile, + "hostname" is the first component of the host name of the server with + all letters in lower case, and where "realm" is the Kerberos realm of + the server. The encrypted checksum field included within the + Kerberos authenticator contains the server provided challenge in + network byte order. + + Upon decrypting and verifying the ticket and authenticator, the + server verifies that the contained checksum field equals the original + server provided random 32-bit number. Should the verification be + successful, the server must add one to the checksum and construct 8 + octets of data, with the first four octets containing the incremented + checksum in network byte order, the fifth octet containing a bit-mask + specifying the security layers supported by the server, and the sixth + through eighth octets containing, in network byte order, the maximum + cipher-text buffer size the server is able to receive. The server + must encrypt using DES ECB mode the 8 octets of data in the session + key and issue that encrypted data in a second challenge. The client + considers the server authenticated if the first four octets of the + un-encrypted data is equal to one plus the checksum it previously + sent. + + The client must construct data with the first four octets containing + the original server-issued checksum in network byte order, the fifth + octet containing the bit-mask specifying the selected security layer, + the sixth through eighth octets containing in network byte order the + maximum cipher-text buffer size the client is able to receive, and + the following octets containing the authorization identity. The + client must then append from one to eight zero-valued octets so that + the length of the data is a multiple of eight octets. The client must + then encrypt using DES PCBC mode the data with the session key and + respond with the encrypted data. The server decrypts the data and + verifies the contained checksum. The server must verify that the + principal identified in the Kerberos ticket is authorized to connect + as that authorization identity. After this verification, the + authentication process is complete. + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + The security layers and their corresponding bit-masks are as follows: + + 1 No security layer + 2 Integrity (krb_mk_safe) protection + 4 Privacy (krb_mk_priv) protection + + Other bit-masks may be defined in the future; bits which are not + understood must be negotiated off. + + EXAMPLE: The following are two Kerberos version 4 login scenarios to + the IMAP4 protocol (note that the line breaks in the sample + authenticators are for editorial clarity and are not in real + authenticators) + + S: * OK IMAP4 Server + C: A001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4 + S: + AmFYig== + C: BAcAQU5EUkVXLkNNVS5FRFUAOCAsho84kLN3/IJmrMG+25a4DT + +nZImJjnTNHJUtxAA+o0KPKfHEcAFs9a3CL5Oebe/ydHJUwYFd + WwuQ1MWiy6IesKvjL5rL9WjXUb9MwT9bpObYLGOKi1Qh + S: + or//EoAADZI= + C: DiAF5A4gA+oOIALuBkAAmw== + S: A001 OK Kerberos V4 authentication successful + + + S: * OK IMAP4 Server + C: A001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4 + S: + gcfgCA== + C: BAcAQU5EUkVXLkNNVS5FRFUAOCAsho84kLN3/IJmrMG+25a4DT + +nZImJjnTNHJUtxAA+o0KPKfHEcAFs9a3CL5Oebe/ydHJUwYFd + WwuQ1MWiy6IesKvjL5rL9WjXUb9MwT9bpObYLGOKi1Qh + S: A001 NO Kerberos V4 authentication failed + +7.2. GSSAPI mechanism + + The mechanism name associated with all mechanisms employing the + GSSAPI [RFC 2078] is "GSSAPI". + +7.2.1 Client side of authentication protocol exchange + + The client calls GSS_Init_sec_context, passing in 0 for + input_context_handle (initially) and a targ_name equal to output_name + from GSS_Import_Name called with input_name_type of + GSS_C_NT_HOSTBASED_SERVICE and input_name_string of + "service@hostname" where "service" is the service name specified in + the protocol's profile, and "hostname" is the fully qualified host + name of the server. The client then responds with the resulting + output_token. If GSS_Init_sec_context returns GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED, + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + then the client should expect the server to issue a token in a + subsequent challenge. The client must pass the token to another call + to GSS_Init_sec_context, repeating the actions in this paragraph. + + When GSS_Init_sec_context returns GSS_S_COMPLETE, the client takes + the following actions: If the last call to GSS_Init_sec_context + returned an output_token, then the client responds with the + output_token, otherwise the client responds with no data. The client + should then expect the server to issue a token in a subsequent + challenge. The client passes this token to GSS_Unwrap and interprets + the first octet of resulting cleartext as a bit-mask specifying the + security layers supported by the server and the second through fourth + octets as the maximum size output_message to send to the server. The + client then constructs data, with the first octet containing the + bit-mask specifying the selected security layer, the second through + fourth octets containing in network byte order the maximum size + output_message the client is able to receive, and the remaining + octets containing the authorization identity. The client passes the + data to GSS_Wrap with conf_flag set to FALSE, and responds with the + generated output_message. The client can then consider the server + authenticated. + +7.2.2 Server side of authentication protocol exchange + + The server passes the initial client response to + GSS_Accept_sec_context as input_token, setting input_context_handle + to 0 (initially). If GSS_Accept_sec_context returns + GSS_S_CONTINUE_NEEDED, the server returns the generated output_token + to the client in challenge and passes the resulting response to + another call to GSS_Accept_sec_context, repeating the actions in this + paragraph. + + When GSS_Accept_sec_context returns GSS_S_COMPLETE, the client takes + the following actions: If the last call to GSS_Accept_sec_context + returned an output_token, the server returns it to the client in a + challenge and expects a reply from the client with no data. Whether + or not an output_token was returned (and after receipt of any + response from the client to such an output_token), the server then + constructs 4 octets of data, with the first octet containing a bit- + mask specifying the security layers supported by the server and the + second through fourth octets containing in network byte order the + maximum size output_token the server is able to receive. The server + must then pass the plaintext to GSS_Wrap with conf_flag set to FALSE + and issue the generated output_message to the client in a challenge. + The server must then pass the resulting response to GSS_Unwrap and + interpret the first octet of resulting cleartext as the bit-mask for + the selected security layer, the second through fourth octets as the + maximum size output_message to send to the client, and the remaining + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + octets as the authorization identity. The server must verify that + the src_name is authorized to authenticate as the authorization + identity. After these verifications, the authentication process is + complete. + +7.2.3 Security layer + + The security layers and their corresponding bit-masks are as follows: + + 1 No security layer + 2 Integrity protection. + Sender calls GSS_Wrap with conf_flag set to FALSE + 4 Privacy protection. + Sender calls GSS_Wrap with conf_flag set to TRUE + + Other bit-masks may be defined in the future; bits which are not + understood must be negotiated off. + +7.3. S/Key mechanism + + The mechanism name associated with S/Key [RFC 1760] using the MD4 + digest algorithm is "SKEY". + + The client sends an initial response with the authorization identity. + + The server then issues a challenge which contains the decimal + sequence number followed by a single space and the seed string for + the indicated authorization identity. The client responds with the + one-time-password, as either a 64-bit value in network byte order or + encoded in the "six English words" format. + + The server must verify the one-time-password. After this + verification, the authentication process is complete. + + S/Key authentication does not provide for any security layers. + + EXAMPLE: The following are two S/Key login scenarios in the IMAP4 + protocol. + + S: * OK IMAP4 Server + C: A001 AUTHENTICATE SKEY + S: + + C: bW9yZ2Fu + S: + OTUgUWE1ODMwOA== + C: Rk9VUiBNQU5OIFNPT04gRklSIFZBUlkgTUFTSA== + S: A001 OK S/Key authentication successful + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + S: * OK IMAP4 Server + C: A001 AUTHENTICATE SKEY + S: + + C: c21pdGg= + S: + OTUgUWE1ODMwOA== + C: BsAY3g4gBNo= + S: A001 NO S/Key authentication failed + + The following is an S/Key login scenario in an IMAP4-like protocol + which has an optional "initial response" argument to the AUTHENTICATE + command. + + S: * OK IMAP4-Like Server + C: A001 AUTHENTICATE SKEY bW9yZ2Fu + S: + OTUgUWE1ODMwOA== + C: Rk9VUiBNQU5OIFNPT04gRklSIFZBUlkgTUFTSA== + S: A001 OK S/Key authentication successful + +7.4. External mechanism + + The mechanism name associated with external authentication is + "EXTERNAL". + + The client sends an initial response with the authorization identity. + + The server uses information, external to SASL, to determine whether + the client is authorized to authenticate as the authorization + identity. If the client is so authorized, the server indicates + successful completion of the authentication exchange; otherwise the + server indicates failure. + + The system providing this external information may be, for example, + IPsec or TLS. + + If the client sends the empty string as the authorization identity + (thus requesting the authorization identity be derived from the + client's authentication credentials), the authorization identity is + to be derived from authentication credentials which exist in the + system which is providing the external authentication. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + +8. References + + [RFC 2060] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version + 4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996. + + [RFC 2078] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program + Interface, Version 2", RFC 2078, January 1997. + + [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC 2223] Postel, J., and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC + Authors", RFC 2223, October 1997. + + [RFC 1760] Haller, N., "The S/Key One-Time Password System", RFC + 1760, February 1995. + + [RFC 1700] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, + RFC 1700, October 1994. + +9. Security Considerations + + Security issues are discussed throughout this memo. + + The mechanisms that support integrity protection are designed such + that the negotiation of the security layer and authorization identity + is integrity protected. When the client selects a security layer + with at least integrity protection, this protects against an active + attacker hijacking the connection and modifying the authentication + exchange to negotiate a plaintext connection. + + When a server or client supports multiple authentication mechanisms, + each of which has a different security strength, it is possible for + an active attacker to cause a party to use the least secure mechanism + supported. To protect against this sort of attack, a client or + server which supports mechanisms of different strengths should have a + configurable minimum strength that it will use. It is not sufficient + for this minimum strength check to only be on the server, since an + active attacker can change which mechanisms the client sees as being + supported, causing the client to send authentication credentials for + its weakest supported mechanism. + + + + + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + + The client's selection of a SASL mechanism is done in the clear and + may be modified by an active attacker. It is important for any new + SASL mechanisms to be designed such that an active attacker cannot + obtain an authentication with weaker security properties by modifying + the SASL mechanism name and/or the challenges and responses. + + Any protocol interactions prior to authentication are performed in + the clear and may be modified by an active attacker. In the case + where a client selects integrity protection, it is important that any + security-sensitive protocol negotiations be performed after + authentication is complete. Protocols should be designed such that + negotiations performed prior to authentication should be either + ignored or revalidated once authentication is complete. + +10. Author's Address + + John G. Myers + Netscape Communications + 501 E. Middlefield Road + Mail Stop MV-029 + Mountain View, CA 94043-4042 + + EMail: jgmyers@netscape.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + +Appendix A. Relation of SASL to Transport Security + + Questions have been raised about the relationship between SASL and + various services (such as IPsec and TLS) which provide a secured + connection. + + Two of the key features of SASL are: + + 1. The separation of the authorization identity from the identity in + the client's credentials. This permits agents such as proxy + servers to authenticate using their own credentials, yet request + the access privileges of the identity for which they are proxying. + + 2. Upon successful completion of an authentication exchange, the + server knows the authorization identity the client wishes to use. + This allows servers to move to a "user is authenticated" state in + the protocol. + + These features are extremely important to some application protocols, + yet Transport Security services do not always provide them. To + define SASL mechanisms based on these services would be a very messy + task, as the framing of these services would be redundant with the + framing of SASL and some method of providing these important SASL + features would have to be devised. + + Sometimes it is desired to enable within an existing connection the + use of a security service which does not fit the SASL model. (TLS is + an example of such a service.) This can be done by adding a command, + for example "STARTTLS", to the protocol. Such a command is outside + the scope of SASL, and should be different from the command which + starts a SASL authentication protocol exchange. + + In certain situations, it is reasonable to use SASL underneath one of + these Transport Security services. The transport service would + secure the connection, either service would authenticate the client, + and SASL would negotiate the authorization identity. The SASL + negotiation would be what moves the protocol from "unauthenticated" + to "authenticated" state. The "EXTERNAL" SASL mechanism is + explicitly intended to handle the case where the transport service + secures the connection and authenticates the client and SASL + negotiates the authorization identity. + + When using SASL underneath a sufficiently strong Transport Security + service, a SASL security layer would most likely be redundant. The + client and server would thus probably want to negotiate off the use + of a SASL security layer. + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 2222 SASL October 1997 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published + andand distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Myers Standards Track [Page 16] +