IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Consensus call: the fate of CRAM-MD5

Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> Tue, 24 March 2009 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA5028C1E6 for <ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 LIwfrKDdLHdT for <ietfarch-sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047BE28C1C8 for <sasl-archive-Zoh8yoh9@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2O7Ld0O079792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:21:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n2O7LdpN079791; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:21:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from yxa-v.extundo.com (yxa-v.extundo.com [83.241.177.39]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2O7LZBo079783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-sasl@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:21:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from simon@josefsson.org)
Received: from c80-216-29-127.bredband.comhem.se ([80.216.29.127] helo=mocca.josefsson.org) by yxa-v.extundo.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <simon@josefsson.org>) id 1Lm0x1-0004XY-Rs; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:21:32 +0100
From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
To: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Cc: ietf-sasl@imc.org
Subject: Re: Consensus call: the fate of CRAM-MD5
References: <ldvzlfbsl80.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:22:090324:ietf-sasl@imc.org::5XHaDDCN0PHsVvfY:Kgd2
X-Hashcash: 1:22:090324:tlyu@mit.edu::S5xEkepg0PXoLAKz:QPjy
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:21:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ldvzlfbsl80.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu> (Tom Yu's message of "Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:33:51 -0400")
Message-ID: <877i2fz8qv.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-sasl@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-sasl/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-sasl.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-sasl-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> writes:

> Based on earlier mail from Lyndon and Alexey, I am initiating a
> consensus call on the following points, which I hope are not
> contentious, as I believe that they express the existing desires of
> the Working Group:
>
> * Abandon work on draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5, removing it from the WG
>   work list.  (de facto already done)
>
> * Leave the status of RFC 2195 (Proposed Standard) unchanged.
>
> * Adopt the SCRAM family as the successor to CRAM-MD5.
>
> * New work item: produce an Informational RFC documenting existing
>   issues with CRAM-MD5.  This document could be based on
>   draft-zeilenga-sasl-crammd5.
>
> * At some point in the future, probably after SCRAM is finished, move
>   CRAM-MD5 to Historic status.
>
> Please comment before April 3.  We can discuss this at tomorrow's WG
> session if necessary, but I do not want it to occupy a lot of session
> time without good reason.

I agree.

I believe the third point may be contentious, given John Kleinsin's
comment at the appsarea meeting.  I don't think we need a decision that
SCRAM will replace CRAM-MD5.  If we are successful, SCRAM will replace
CRAM-MD5 in deployments.  If this does not succeed, it does not help
that we say that SCRAM really does replace CRAM-MD5.

I would support the plan without the third point too.

/Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email