Re: MOGGIES Proposed Charter

Simon Josefsson <> Tue, 18 May 2010 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF113A6B8D; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.395
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZdpH1+W5FQy; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C85C3A6CA5; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mocca ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id o4IHlDg9019562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 May 2010 19:47:16 +0200
From: Simon Josefsson <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
Subject: Re: MOGGIES Proposed Charter
References: <> <> <>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 19:47:13 +0200
In-Reply-To: <> (Alexey Melnikov's message of "Tue, 18 May 2010 17:20:03 +0100")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96 at yxa-v
X-Virus-Status: Clean
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 17:48:59 -0000

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.