Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter

Kurt Zeilenga <> Tue, 25 May 2010 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C943A6B54; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.362
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.363, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VYHC3JU9YU5z; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6653A679C; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ((unknown) []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Tue, 25 May 2010 15:58:21 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Subject: Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter
From: Kurt Zeilenga <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 07:58:18 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Shawn Emery <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:, Tim Polk <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:58:59 -0000

I am fine with the charter not specifically stating it will undertake revision of RFC 4422.  I see no burning need to undertake this work and personally rather wait for SASLprep to be sorted.

On the subject of SASLprep, I rather revision of RFC 4013 be worked in NewPrep.  The reason for this is two fold. 1) Expertise: I figure there is better chance of getting both SASL (and general security expertise) and Unicode/StringPrep expertise in the NewPrep forums than the MOGGIES forums.   2) SASLprep is used not only by SASL mechanisms but in various other systems, such as LDAP, I prefer a more neutral forum.

On the subject of "interface for reporting the security strength of GSS-API:  I note that I once wrote an I-D which kinds of relates to this.  <>.   Beyond that, I think this work item is a rat-hole and rather it not be on the charter.  Instead, I suggest folks pursue this on an individual/independent basis if they think they can come up with something useful here.

-- Kurt