Return-Path: X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D62D1A0323 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IHE_fu-1dQeK for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x22e.google.com (mail-oa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271EB1A0314 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i7so5307231oag.33 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:10:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/cINn7Akc3I4VuwVtF3inN1zzHlQEekWlh+kijDEjvk=; b=WgDpz4tI4+GxN15wYtR1LpFIjDJvLMY03sIlxjcLQZhWpdPjb7SHW/27ZMouxC5AX3 /LgABBbibY7UZ7p777H1iAhIEkJygcl2+OF2GhnQo/rZOG0OoHAciLNYcLQ5rzs2LkhB SvYZ3kASAELTzkjKHpzdKT1K964CpWYb8e9i4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/cINn7Akc3I4VuwVtF3inN1zzHlQEekWlh+kijDEjvk=; b=IVEJP4CbUR7kOqfC38nW0vR86WDdX9BN2PIfU9RMi1CvjC22lNNwEWicUgPHH9PbSR 8MeZiFhzgFQMThA/KkUM8z985VrQ/3jdmTCN2HMS6jnW5r7ZcJpieKbd/wGO5ZBznKzg bsz1e4KntyeGI7oGp0N0IwAuOdHNNHtabxbnn8kjYqxoHpFqRXK59USVce9B/fnU8SBO j0UFymXONvugNXOkjYwxfWZ0xktso6PkKCzQjHJEbTAaJAvLYBWv9pkyop1zUyymT7V+ gVgyAcTT+ZYieUfi5ZGdar5r+9UlIs7EnpGw0vAhJdK6iLHANEDCw1RxGx9KfSHPx8WS pQ2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmZi1AF+hXy3kKXTK9IZZxSrYPXJZPrLYrpY68OxbcAa8HgPQ8/cHHFXwmnEl2uXbz9fsWs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.166.40 with SMTP id zd8mr16089134obb.25.1397171419015; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.93.6 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:10:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140411001759.3d89cfb5@latte.josefsson.org> References: <5319DE8B.1030202@att.com> <20140312162849.152e924b@latte.josefsson.org> <20140411001759.3d89cfb5@latte.josefsson.org> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:10:18 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Cridland To: Simon Josefsson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1ce021efe9104f6b852de Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/zjYBFVDiCNma96HdHz0ETiTImaI Cc: kitten@ietf.org Subject: Re: [kitten] [IANA #748877] please review SASL-SCRAM-256 X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:10:24 -0000 --e89a8ff1ce021efe9104f6b852de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 10 April 2014 23:17, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I haven't seen anyone disagree with my interpretation that the > registration policy for new SCRAM-* mechanisms are "IETF Review", which > requires an RFC. Therefor, I will suggest to IANA that they turn down > the registration request until that has been fulfilled. > Yes, they're IETF Review. Although RFC 5802 is generally hash agnostic, a handful of parts of SCRAM are defined specific to SCRAM-SHA-1[-PLUS], including the minimum iteration count for example, so an RFC might prove useful anyway. Dave. --e89a8ff1ce021efe9104f6b852de Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 1= 0 April 2014 23:17, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> = wrote:
I haven't seen anyone disagree with my i= nterpretation that the
registration policy for new SCRAM-* mechanisms are "IETF Review",= which
requires an RFC. =A0Therefor, I will suggest to IANA that they turn down the registration request until that has been fulfilled.


Yes, they're IETF Review.
Although RFC 5802 is generally hash agnostic, a handful of part= s of SCRAM are defined specific to SCRAM-SHA-1[-PLUS], including the minimu= m iteration count for example, so an RFC might prove useful anyway.

Dave.
--e89a8ff1ce021efe9104f6b852de--