Re: [sasl] New Work Items - Kitten Recharter

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Shawn Emery wrote:

> We are looking for consensus on whether the Kitten WG should adopt the 
> following drafts as work items:
>
>     draft-cantor-ietf-sasl-saml-ec
>     draft-mills-kitten-sasl-oauth
>
> You can respond to lists (kitten or SASL), but please indicate your 
> decision regardless if you are for or against the proposal.
>
> If we do decide to shepherd these drafts then we will recharter again 
> to include the following patch:
>
> @@ -50,10 +50,14 @@
>  
>  * A SASL Mechanism for OpenID
>      draft-lear-ietf-sasl-openid-00
>  * A SASL Mechanism for SAML
>      draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml-00
> +* A SASL Mechanism for SAML Enhanced Client
> +    draft-cantor-ietf-sasl-saml-ec

<hat type="AreaDirector">
I think IESG might want to know why there are 2 separate SAML 
mechanisms. While I can be convinced that both of them might be needed, 
the WG should have some good arguments to defend this.
</hat>

<hat type="IndividualContributor">
I think both of the documents should be discussed in the WG.
</hat>

> +* A SASL Mechanism for OAuth
> +    draft-mills-kitten-sasl-oauth

<hat type="IndividualContributor">
I am also happy to take this one as a WG item.
</hat>

>  The transition from SASL to GSS-API mechanisms will allow a greater 
> set of
>  applications to utilize said mechanisms with SASL implementations 
> that support
>  the use of GSS-API mechanisms in SASL (draft-ietf-sasl-gs2).
>
> Shawn.