Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, May 18, 2010 02:15:22 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams 
<[e-mail]> 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