Re: ietf-nntp My notes from the NNTP WG meeting at the 37thIETF

Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org> Fri, 20 December 1996 19:47 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa21962; 20 Dec 96 14:47 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18455; 20 Dec 96 14:47 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id NAA20474 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:44:58 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA20469 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:44:55 -0600 (CST)
Received: from postman.osf.org (postman.osf.org [130.105.1.152]) by academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA06488 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:44:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: from sulphur.osf.org (sulphur.osf.org [130.105.1.123]) by postman.osf.org (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA16886; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:43:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Received: by sulphur.osf.org (1.38.193.4/4.7) id AA19887; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:42:10 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:42:10 -0500
Message-Id: <9612201942.AA19887@sulphur.osf.org>
To: NatBa@microsoft.com, brian@nothing.ucsd.edu, jack@wildbear.on.ca, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp My notes from the NNTP WG meeting at the 37thIETF
Cc: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

At the time Chris proposed the groundwork for AUTHINFO GENERIC, I was
running out of energy to work on INN.  I reviewed, and reshaped, the
protocol and his document.

The intent was that AUTHINFO LIST show you what crypto-mechs were
supported by the server, and the client picks one.  AUTHINFO GENERIC
was intended to be a really simple mapping right onto GSSAPI.

By the time the code and "spec" got out there, I had given up almost all
work on NNTP.  I also didn't know enough about SASL, but at the time
AG :) was only lagging about two months behind SASL.  John ran really
hard with his implementation, etc., so the gap is now probably six
months in terms of finish AG, quality of implementation, etc.  I don't
know what's the better course of action, primarily because I don't know
much about SASL.  For example, does it include negotiation that is not
suspect to man-in-the-middle downgrading?  (I.e., it's not CAT-IETF SNEGO?)
	/r$