Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter

Jeffrey Hutzelman <> Tue, 18 May 2010 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063A13A6ACE; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.931
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.746, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QUiSEebDfNKm; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8363A6AD1; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MINBAR.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU (MINBAR.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o4IL9Hcc001108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 May 2010 17:09:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:09:17 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <>
To: Nicolas Williams <>, Shawn Emery <>
Subject: Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on
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, 18 May 2010 21:09:28 -0000

--On Tuesday, May 18, 2010 02:15:22 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams 
<> wrote:

> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:12:33PM -0600, Shawn Emery wrote:
>> As discussed; attached is the proposed charter text for a new
>> working group (MOGGIES) based on future direction in the GSS-API and
>> SASL space.  Please provide any feed-back to the lists by the end of
>> May.
> I don't love the name (I keep thinking "MOOGIES", which sounds like
> something gross :), but I'll live; I have no better suggestions.

I don't even _understand_ the name.  Or the expansion.
Can't we have something that doesn't make me (and anyone not already 
familiar with what we're working on) go "Huh?" ?

>> This working group will review SASL related submissions as well,
>> including any new SASL mechanisms proposed.
> New SASL mechanisms?  Why not new GSS-API mechanisms?  Why not close the
> WG (and even SASL) to new non-GS2 mechanisms?  Might there be conflicts
> with EMU?

This WG should review proposals for new SASL and GSS-API mechanisms, and 
such work should be considered to fall within its general scope, but it 
should be constrained to actually work only on mechanisms specifically 
listed in the charter.  If we want to work on a new mechanism, we can amend 
the charter.

It should also be willing to provide advice and review on non-mechanism 
proposals such as defining use of SASL or GSS-API in a new or existing 
protocol.  However, actual work on such proposals should be done in the 
relevant WG for the protocol in question, and _not_ in the new one.

-- Jeff