Re: [jose] #161 Password Considerations

So it sounds like these won't complete anytime soon, in other words. :-/

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Miller (mamille2) [mailto:mamille2@cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:21 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Jim Schaad; Manger, James H; jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] #161 Password Considerations - Proposed Text

The document draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis competed a WG LC a few weeks ago, but went through a fair amount of changes recently.  A discussion with some Kitten WG folk is pending to make sure their concerns are addressed.  It might go through another WG LC.  The foundational documents for PRECIS (draft-ietf-precis-framework and draft-ietf-precis-mappings) completed WG LC; the consensus was that precis-framework is ready for IETF LC, but precis-mapping might not be (each has a normative reference to the other, and saslprepbis has a normative reference to precis-framework).

- m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I'm OK with the MUST.  But can anyone give us a status update on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis?  It doesn't appear to be in the RFC Editor queue.  I'm worried that if we make a normative reference, JWA will be held up in the RFC editor queue for on reference, just like draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri is currently held up in the RFC Editor queue on a reference to draft-ietf-precis-framework, which has not yet been received by the RFC Editor.
> 
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:48 PM
> To: 'Manger, James H'; Mike Jones; 'Matt Miller (mamille2)'; 
> jose@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [jose] #161 Password Considerations - Proposed Text
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Manger, James H
>> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:36 PM
>> To: Mike Jones; Matt Miller (mamille2); <jose@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [jose] #161 Password Considerations - Proposed Text
>> 
>>> ----------
>>> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
>>> 
>>> I believe that the following text addresses the encoding issue that 
>>> James raised:
>>> 
>>> 	  The PBES2 password input is an octet sequence;
>>> 	  if the password to be used is represented as a text string
>>> 	  rather than an octet sequence, the UTF-8 encoding of the text
> string
>>> 	  SHOULD be used as the octet sequence.
>>> 
>>> If you'd like to see any changes made to it, please propose specific 
>>> edits.
>>> 
>>> (The SASLPREP text is already present in the Internationalization 
>>> Considerations section.)
>>> 
>>> 				Thanks,
>>> 				-- Mike
>> 
>> 
>> At least change SHOULD to MUST.
> 
> If it is not changed then there needs to be a lot of description about why this is not a MUST.  If this is the case then it would be logical that two different implementations could do different decisions and never interoperate.
> 
> I would say that we should make a normative reference to the draft-melnikov-precis-saslprepbis as well.  If not then we will probably get hit by the ADs.
> 
> Jim
> 
>> 
>> --
>> James Manger
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> jose@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> 