New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CAP NEW/DEL sasl #332

Closed
syzop opened this Issue Nov 15, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@syzop
Copy link

syzop commented Nov 15, 2017

In UnrealIRCd 4.0.16 we send a CAP DEL sasl when services disconnect and CAP NEW sasl when they re-appear. This because the 'sasl' capability, after all, disappears when services are offline and reappears when they come back online.
Also, I figured it would give the opportunity for clients to (re-)authenticate if they see services (re)connect. For already authenticated clients most services won't ask to re-identify (due to svsid) but a user may get connected while services were offline, so then this would be useful when they must identify x time later when services come online.
Is the sending of CAP DEL / CAP NEW in this case acceptable behavior?
I thought so, of course, that's why it was added. But a client dev said he didn't really expect this (but can live with it).

Do you think any clarification is necessary in the spec? Or can this just be closed after answering the question?

@jwheare

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

jwheare commented Nov 15, 2017

The spec says http://ircv3.net/specs/extensions/sasl-3.2.html#integration-with-cap-notify

The sasl capability is integrated with the new cap-notify framework, such that if cap-notify is an active capability, the client will be notified about status changes concerning the availability of sasl authentication.

Servers MUST advertise availability of the sasl capability to any clients which have requested the cap-notify notification.

So yes this is expected behaviour, just make sure to include the mechs list in the value on CAP NEW.

Makes sense?

@syzop

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

syzop commented Nov 15, 2017

Ah, yes, that sounds very clear. Good!
Sorry, I guess we were both only looking at the cap-notify spec, not the sasl spec.
Can be closed as far as I'm concerned.

@syzop syzop closed this Nov 15, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment