Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com> Tue, 18 May 2010 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: kitten@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65443A6A71; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.394
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irZWgmOjDU49; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com (rcsinet10.oracle.com [148.87.113.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF03B3A68FC; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o4ILd0nD011485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 May 2010 21:39:01 GMT
Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o4IJStsQ032403; Tue, 18 May 2010 21:38:59 GMT
Received: from abhmt007.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 278280271274218726; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:38:46 -0700
Received: from oracle.com (/129.153.128.104) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 18 May 2010 14:38:45 -0700
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 16:38:40 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [sasl] MOGGIES Proposed Charter
Message-ID: <20100518213840.GO9429@oracle.com>
References: <4BF221C1.2090005@oracle.com> <22122_1274210205_o4IJGi7g000698_20100518191521.GL9429@oracle.com> <0653C22222CBEBDD0AD1CCFA@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0653C22222CBEBDD0AD1CCFA@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-03-02)
X-Auth-Type: Internal IP
X-Source-IP: rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4BF308F7.002B:SCFMA4539811,ss=1,fgs=0
Cc: kitten@ietf.org, sasl@ietf.org, Tim Polk <tim.polk@nist.gov>
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 21:39:13 -0000

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 05:09:17PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> >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.

OK, which mechanisms, if any should the WG work on?

We have SCRAM, we have GS2, we have RFC4121, and KRB-WG will work on
IAKERB.  That leaves only PKU2U, and that'd be up to Larry.

> 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.

Indeed.