RFC Errata
RFC 5802, "Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) SASL and GSS-API Mechanisms", July 2010
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7677, RFC 9266
Source of RFC: sasl (sec)
Errata ID: 5580
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Wang Xin
Date Reported: 2018-12-19
Section 7 says:
server-error-value = "invalid-encoding" /
"extensions-not-supported" / ; unrecognized 'm' value
"invalid-proof" /
"channel-bindings-dont-match" /
"server-does-support-channel-binding" /
; server does not support channel binding
"channel-binding-not-supported" /
"unsupported-channel-binding-type" /
"unknown-user" /
"invalid-username-encoding" /
; invalid username encoding (invalid UTF-8 or
; SASLprep failed)
"no-resources" /
"other-error" /
server-error-value-ext
; Unrecognized errors should be treated as "other-error".
; In order to prevent information disclosure, the server
; may substitute the real reason with "other-error".
It should say:
server-error-value = "invalid-encoding" /
"extensions-not-supported" / ; unrecognized 'm' value
"invalid-proof" /
"channel-bindings-dont-match" /
"server-does-support-channel-binding" /
; the client thinks the server does not support
; channel binding, but the server does
"channel-binding-not-supported" /
"unsupported-channel-binding-type" /
"unknown-user" /
"invalid-username-encoding" /
; invalid username encoding (invalid UTF-8 or
; SASLprep failed)
"no-resources" /
"other-error" /
server-error-value-ext
; Unrecognized errors should be treated as "other-error".
; In order to prevent information disclosure, the server
; may substitute the real reason with "other-error".
Notes:
See Section 6, "If the flag is set to "y" and the server supports channel binding, the server MUST fail authentication. "
I assume the server-error-value "server-does-support-channel-binding" is designed for such situation.
