Subject: MAILING LIST LAST CALL

From: John Gardiner Myers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:41:05 -0500 (EST)

Given the lack of a concrete proposal to the registration scheme in
draft-myers-auth-sasl-06.txt, and also given the lack of discussion
leading towards such a proposal, I am now issuing a mailing list last
call for the following documents.

draft-myers-sasl-pop3-00.txt
draft-myers-smtp-auth-04.txt
draft-myers-auth-sasl-06.txt

Unless I get a significant negative response by this time next week, I
intend to request an appropriate Area Director to review the documents
and issue an IETF-wide Last Call.

-- 
_.John Gardiner Myers	Internet: [email-masked]
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up

---

From: "Jack De Winter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:27:58 -0500

>The S/Key mechanism should state explicitly that it uses MD4, or
>be flushed from the base spec.
>
>I'd like to see CRAM-MD5 folded into the base SASL spec, if John Klensin
>agrees.
>
>The mechanisms in the document should be defined according the the
>registration template, so they can better serve as examples.
>
>I'm looking forward to seeing this go standards track ASAP, and don't
>consider any of the above three suggestions show stoppers.

I concur.  One of my problems with SKEY has always been the 'use MD4 but
a lot of implementations use MD5' line in the SKEY spec.  And as someone
who just implemented CRAM, it is very easy to do as soon as you make sure
you read the example in the spec very carefully.

Also, since San Jose, I assume that we now have a IANA process for
registering new SASL types, and that should explicitly be spelled out,
as well as what to do in cases of collision and proprietary or testing
extensions.

regards,
Jack
-------------------------------------------------
Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
(519) 576-3873		http://www.wildbear.on.ca/

Author of SLMail(95/NT) (http://www.seattlelab.com/) and other great products.