Re: [kitten] Comments on draft-ietf-kitten-password-storage-00

[Sam Whited <[e-mail]>]

Following up on this after our conversation out-of-band since I
apparently misunderstood this sentence:

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020, at 13:03, Ludovic BOCQUET wrote:
> Note: The final "draft-ietf-kitten-password-storage" must be validated
> like a RFC after the next two I-Ds, it is really important.

I appreciate your confidence and desire to see this published as an RFC,
but I don't think we can set such an aggressive timeline on it.

I'll be the first to complain about working with the IETFs obtuse
process (someone was kind enough to sit me down and walk me through the
whole thing on video chat and I still have no idea how any of it works
or what my role as an author is, the tools are impossible to use, the
format is impossible to write, etc.), but picking an arbitrary number of
drafts before advancing a document with a lot of subtle bits that need
expert review doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Sorry, I'd love to see it advance too, but I'm not sure it's ready
quite yet. We have plenty of time to see what happens with the other
SCRAM I-D first. If one document or the other looks like it's ready to
advance, we can reevaluate this position before doing so. Don't worry,
if the new SCRAM mechanisms look like they're going to work out, we'll
get them in there!

Although I haven't heard many other opinions; if waiting on linking the
other SCRAM I-Ds seems too conservative I'd love to be told I'm wrong by
more seasoned IETF folks.

Thanks,
Sam