Re: MOGGIES Proposed Charter

Alexey Melnikov <> Tue, 18 May 2010 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595CA3A6AA6; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.289
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.549, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mOi12qTJ1nrj; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D81A3A6AC6; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <>; Tue, 18 May 2010 18:49:14 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:48:41 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Simon Josefsson <>
Subject: Re: MOGGIES Proposed Charter
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 17:50:28 -0000

Simon Josefsson wrote:

>Alexey Melnikov <> writes:
>>Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>The charter looks fine to me.  Do we have energy to also look at moving
>>>RFC 4422 from Proposed to Draft?  Unless I'm missing something, that
>>>shouldn't be too complicated.  I recall some implementation evaluation
>>>has already started.
>>I wouldn't object to this, as long as I don't need to write the
>>implementation report. I can contribute necessary information for the
>>Cyrus SASL though.
>I now recall one issue that was causing trouble earlier: SASLprep.  It
>wasn't clear (at least not to me) whether it is a good idea to move RFC
>4422 to Draft as long as it referenced SASLprep.  Now, the references to
>SASLprep only affect other specifications, not implementations, thus we
>might be able to dodge this issue completely by explaining that.
>On the other hand, perhaps we should punt on moving SASL to Draft
>Standard until we have some clear vision for the future of i18n in SASL.
>The SASLprep replacement work the WG likely will be chartered to take on
>may result in an update to RFC 4422, and we could move that replacement
>document to Draft Standard instead of RFC 4422.
Good point.